DCT
2:25-cv-00323
Valtrus Innovations Ltd v. TierPoint LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Valtrus Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. (Ireland)
- Defendant: TierPoint, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP; Findlay Craft, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00323, E.D. Tex., 04/01/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant TierPoint having a regular and established place of business within the district, specifically its DA2 Data Center in Allen, Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s data center infrastructure and operations infringe three patents, originally developed by Hewlett Packard Enterprise, related to modular data center design, redundant power supply control, and object monitoring within a facility.
- Technical Context: The patents concern core technologies for optimizing the deployment, operational efficiency, and management of large-scale data centers.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiffs provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of infringement for two of the three asserted patents via a letter dated March 22, 2024. It also mentions that the parties engaged in licensing discussions that were unsuccessful and that a separate patent infringement lawsuit between the parties, concerning different patents, was filed in September 2024 and remains pending. This history may be relevant to the complaint’s allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-06-29 | Earliest Priority Date for ’509 Patent |
| 2006-06-06 | ’509 Patent Issued |
| 2009-06-25 | Earliest Priority Date for ’967 Patent |
| 2010-07-12 | Earliest Priority Date for ’855 Patent |
| 2011-05-10 | ’967 Patent Issued |
| 2016-04-12 | ’855 Patent Issued |
| 2024-03-22 | Plaintiffs send Notice Letter to Defendant for '855 & '967 Patents |
| 2024-03-27 | Defendant responds to Notice Letter |
| 2024-09-25 | Plaintiffs file separate lawsuit against Defendant |
| 2025-04-01 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,310,855 - "Flexible data center and methods for deployment"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a market gap between traditional "brick and mortar" data centers, which are expensive and slow to build, and "containerized" data centers, which may be perceived as short-term or low-reliability solutions (’855 Patent, col. 1:17-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a modular and scalable "flexible data center" architecture. This design is based on constructing a data center from standardized "blocks," where each block comprises one or more "perimeter structures" to house server racks and a central "connecting structure" for operational equipment, security, and administration (’855 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:7-16). This modularity is intended to allow for efficient, incremental expansion synchronized with business growth.
- Technical Importance: The described approach seeks to combine the timeliness and cost-effectiveness of pre-fabricated solutions with the long-term, robust vision of traditional data center construction (’855 Patent, col. 2:27-34).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 8.
- Independent Claim 8 requires a flexible data center comprising:
- A number "B" of blocks on a site.
- Each block including one to a number "P" of perimeter structures, each housing up to "R" rows of server racks.
- Each block also including a connecting structure for housing operations monitoring equipment.
- A total integer number "T/R" of perimeter structures.
- The number of blocks "B" being equal to an integer number "(T/R)/P".
- At most one block includes less than "P" perimeter structures.
U.S. Patent No. 7,939,967 - "Multiple Power Supply Control"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent notes that in redundant power systems where multiple supplies share a load, each supply often operates at "less than optimum efficiency" (’967 Patent, col. 1:7-11).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a power redundancy scheme where a first power supply operates at a normal level and a second power supply remains at a "lesser output level," such as a standby mode (’967 Patent, col. 6:30-34). If the first supply detects an "anomalous condition" in its input source, it issues an "alert signal." This signal triggers the second supply to transition to a normal output level. During this transition, the first supply uses its internal energy storage to continue powering the load, ensuring an uninterrupted handover (’967 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-11).
- Technical Importance: This active-standby method allows for higher operational efficiency in the power supplies compared to load-sharing models, which can translate to significant energy and cost savings in a data center environment.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1.
- Independent Claim 1 requires an apparatus comprising:
- A first power supply coupled to a load and a first energy source, configured to issue an "alert signal" indicating a failure condition of the first source.
- A second power supply coupled to the load and a second energy source, configured to "transition from a lesser output level to a greater output level" in response to an "activation signal."
U.S. Patent No. 7,057,509 - "Monitoring an object with identification data and tracking data"
Technology Synopsis
The patent addresses the challenge that monitoring systems are often specialized for either high-accuracy identification (e.g., at a checkpoint) or for general area tracking (e.g., via cameras), but struggle to do both well (’509 Patent, col. 2:12-34). The invention provides a method and system that receives distinct "identification data" from an identification system and "tracking data" from a tracking system, then merges them to form a unified, more detailed monitoring record for an object (’509 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts at least independent claim 17 (Compl. ¶35).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that TierPoint's U.S. data centers perform the claimed method to monitor objects within the facilities (Compl. ¶35).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendant TierPoint’s "data centers" (Compl. ¶26), including their "flexible data centers" (Compl. ¶26), "redundant power systems" (Compl. ¶31), and methods for monitoring objects within those facilities (Compl. ¶35).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that TierPoint makes, uses, sells, and/or offers for sale these data centers and their associated services within the United States (Compl. ¶19). It specifically identifies the "DA2 Data Center" in Allen, Texas, as a "regular and established place of business" where infringing acts occur (Compl. ¶22). The infringement allegations target the fundamental architecture, power management infrastructure, and operational monitoring methods of these facilities.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references exemplary claim charts in Exhibits 4 and 5, which were not provided with the pleading. The following analysis is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.
’855 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a flexible data center ... comprising: a number B of blocks on a site | TierPoint's flexible data centers are allegedly constructed using the claimed modular "block" structure. | ¶26 | col. 8:38-40 |
| each block including: one to a number P of perimeter structures, wherein each perimeter structure houses up to a number R of rows of server racks | The blocks in TierPoint's data centers are alleged to contain "perimeter structures" that house server racks. | ¶26 | col. 8:41-43 |
| a connecting structure connected to the number P of perimeter structures, wherein the connecting structure houses operations monitoring equipment for the server racks | The blocks in TierPoint's data centers are alleged to contain a "connecting structure" for monitoring and operational equipment. | ¶26 | col. 8:46-51 |
| a total integer number T/R of perimeter structures ... B is equal to an integer number (T/R)/P; and at most one block includes less than P perimeter structures | The complaint makes a general allegation that TierPoint's data centers infringe, which implies these claimed numerical and structural relationships are met. | ¶26 | col. 8:52-61 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary issue will be whether the physical layout of TierPoint's data centers, which may not have been designed with the patent's specific terminology in mind, can be fairly characterized as comprising the claimed "blocks," "perimeter structures," and "connecting structure." The definition of these terms will be central to the dispute.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint, or will discovery, provide to demonstrate that TierPoint's data center deployments adhere to the specific mathematical relationships between the total number of rows ("T"), rows per structure ("R"), structures per block ("P"), and total blocks ("B") as required by claim 8?
’967 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first power supply ... configured to issue an alert signal indicative of a failure condition of the first source of electrical energy | TierPoint's redundant power systems are alleged to have a power supply that detects an input failure and issues a corresponding signal. | ¶31 | col. 7:19-23 |
| a second power supply ... configured to transition from a lesser output level to a greater output level in response to an activation signal | A second power supply in TierPoint's system allegedly transitions from a standby or reduced state to a full operational state upon receiving a signal related to the first supply's failure. | ¶31 | col. 7:24-28 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does the signaling protocol within TierPoint's power system meet the definitions of an "alert signal" and an "activation signal" as contemplated by the patent? How is the "lesser output level" defined, and does TierPoint's secondary supply operate in such a state?
- Technical Questions: Does the accused system operate in the specific active/standby configuration described, or does it use a different redundancy model, such as active/active load sharing? The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," and dependent claims add further limitations, such as the first supply providing power from stored energy during the transition (e.g., claim 2), which raises the question of whether this specific functionality is present in the accused systems.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
’855 Patent:
- The Term: "block"
- Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’855 Patent is contingent on demonstrating that TierPoint’s data centers are constructed from these claimed "blocks." The definition will determine if a conventional data hall or a set of interconnected modules can be considered a "block."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims define a block by its components: "one to a number P of perimeter structures" and "a connecting structure" (’855 Patent, col. 8:41-49). This functional definition could be argued to cover various physical layouts.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 depicts a specific "H-shaped" or "butterfly" configuration. A defendant may argue that the term "block" should be limited to embodiments that resemble this specific architectural arrangement.
’967 Patent:
- The Term: "lesser output level"
- Context and Importance: The claim requires the second power supply to transition from a "lesser output level." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction is critical to distinguishing the invention from load-sharing systems where both supplies are always active.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is relative and could be argued to mean any output level below the "greater output level" of normal operation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly discusses this state as a "standby mode" (’967 Patent, col. 3:23) and explicitly describes an illustrative embodiment where the voltage is at a "standby (zero) output level" (’967 Patent, col. 6:62-63). This could support an argument that the term requires a zero or near-zero power output, not merely a reduced output.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that TierPoint infringes "directly and through intermediaries" (Compl. ¶19) but does not plead specific facts, such as providing instructions or components to a third party, to support a distinct claim for induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of the ’855 and ’967 Patents based on pre-suit knowledge stemming from a "Notice Letter" sent on March 22, 2024, and Defendant’s alleged failure to cease infringement thereafter (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 27, 32). For the ’509 Patent, any willfulness allegation would rely on knowledge gained from the filing of the complaint itself, as no pre-suit notice is mentioned for that patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue for the ’855 patent will be one of structural definition: can the physical architecture of TierPoint's operational data centers be mapped onto the specific, defined terminology of a "block" composed of "perimeter structures" and a "connecting structure," or is there a fundamental mismatch between the patented design and the accused facilities?
- A key question for the ’967 patent will be one of operational mode: do TierPoint's redundant power systems function in the claimed active/standby model, where one supply is at a "lesser output level" until an anomaly occurs, or do they employ a different redundancy scheme (e.g., active-active load sharing) that falls outside the claim scope?
- For all asserted patents, a central evidentiary challenge will be for the Plaintiff to show, with technical evidence, that the accused data centers meet not only the general concepts but also the specific functional and, where applicable, mathematical limitations recited in the asserted independent claims.