Storage Vectors LLC v. Kioxia Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Storage Vectors LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: KIOXIA Corporation (Japan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00276, E.D. Tex., 03/06/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the defendant being a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s storage products infringe a patent related to methods for storing different data types (e.g., general-purpose vs. streaming media) using distinct physical formats on the same storage medium to optimize capacity.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the inefficient use of storage space in conventional devices by tailoring storage parameters, such as data density and error resilience, to the specific requirements of the data being stored.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff states it is the assignee of the patent-in-suit. The patent-in-suit claims priority to a provisional application filed in 2007.

Case Timeline

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

• 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’s background section explains that conventional storage devices, such as hard disk drives and flash memory, are typically "over designed" for storing error-tolerant or streaming (ETS) data, such as audio/visual (AV) streams (ʼ426 Patent, col. 2:5-12). These devices are engineered to provide a very low bit-error-rate (BER) suitable for general purpose (GP) data where a single bit error can be critical, a standard which is unnecessarily high and capacity-limiting for media files that can tolerate some errors (ʼ426 Patent, col. 1:49-59).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a single storage device differentiates between GP data and ETS data, storing each using a different "physical storage format attribute" on the same storage medium (ʼ426 Patent, Abstract). For ETS data, the device can use a format that increases storage density at the cost of higher error rates (e.g., by increasing bits per inch on a disk or levels per cell in flash memory), thereby increasing the device's overall effective capacity (ʼ426 Patent, col. 4:29-39). Figure 1 of the patent illustrates this concept, showing a single data storage device that formats "ETS data" and "GP data" differently to achieve different Bit Error Rates (BERs).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows storage device manufacturers to increase the usable capacity of their products for media-centric applications, a significant value proposition in consumer electronics where content is "dominated by ETS data such as AV stream content" (ʼ426 Patent, col. 4:63-66).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, referencing instead the "Exemplary '426 Patent Claims" in a separate exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • 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;
  • 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 reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" listed in Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' functionality. All specific technical allegations regarding the products are incorporated by reference from Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's products infringe the ʼ426 Patent but incorporates the specific infringement comparisons into an external document, Exhibit 2, which is not publicly available (Compl. ¶¶16-17). As such, a detailed claim chart analysis based on the complaint's direct allegations is not possible. The general infringement theory is that the accused products practice the claimed method by storing different types of data (general purpose vs. streaming) using different physical formats on the same storage medium (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the proper construction of "physical storage format attribute." The infringement analysis will depend on whether the methods employed in the accused products to handle different data types fall within the scope of this term as defined by the patent.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused products actually use two different physical storage formats for GP versus streaming data on the same medium. The case may turn on evidence demonstrating, for example, that the accused devices verifiably alter storage density or error correction schemes based on the type of data being written.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "physical storage format attribute"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central limitation of the independent claims, defining the specific mechanism of the invention. The outcome of the case will likely depend on whether the functionality of the accused products is found to embody a "different" physical storage format attribute for different data types.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the "storage medium... is utilized differently... in aspects including block size, storage of error correction codes, utilization of error correction codes, storage area density, physical format pattern, storage verification, or reaction to failed storage verification" (ʼ426 Patent, col. 2:38-43). This list may support a broad interpretation that covers a wide range of differentiating techniques.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term should be limited by the more specific examples described in the embodiments, such as arranging data tracks in a "continuous spiral pattern" for streaming data versus "concentric circles" for general purpose data (ʼ426 Patent, col. 4:46-54), or specific increases to "Bits per inch (BPI) and tracks per inch (TPI)" (ʼ426 Patent, col. 4:32-34).

• The Term: "streaming data"

• Context and Importance: The claims require storing "streaming data" differently from "general purpose data." The definition of this term is critical for establishing the predicate condition for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused products do not handle data that meets the patent's definition of "streaming data," there can be no infringement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines ETS (Error Tolerant or Streaming) data as "either error tolerant... or streaming, meaning that each block of data follows the next in a 'file'-like format, or both" (ʼ426 Patent, col. 1:39-42). This "or" construction suggests a broad definition that could encompass any data that is either tolerant of errors or sequentially ordered.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification frequently uses Audio/Visual (AV) data, such as an "MPEG-4 encoded TV program," as the primary example of ETS data (ʼ426 Patent, col. 1:42-45). A defendant may argue that the term should be construed more narrowly to apply only to such media-centric data streams.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct customers on how to use the accused products in a manner that directly infringes the ʼ426 Patent (Compl. ¶¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint itself "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement," and that any continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶13).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "physical storage format attribute," which the patent illustrates with examples like spiral tracks and modified BPI/TPI, be construed to cover the specific data management techniques implemented in Defendant's modern storage devices?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: what evidence can Plaintiff offer to demonstrate that the accused products perform the claimed method of using two genuinely distinct physical storage schemes on the same medium, one for "general purpose data" and another for "streaming data," as those terms are defined in the patent?