DCT
2:25-cv-00649
ServStor Tech LLC v. QNAP Systems Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: ServStor Technologies LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: QNAP Systems, Inc. (Taiwan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fabricant LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00649, E.D. Tex., 06/20/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in any U.S. judicial district because Defendant is not a resident of the United States.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s network routers, switches, and related software infringe patents related to methods for transferring and routing data packets between networked devices.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns protocols for communication between disaggregated network elements, a foundational concept for modern data storage, routers, and peer-to-peer networks.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit based on prior litigation Plaintiff filed against Defendant's competitors (Broadcom, ZTE) and through direct correspondence sent to QNAP on September 30, 2022, to which QNAP allegedly responded on October 25, 2022.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-11-12 | Earliest Priority Date for '773 and '814 Patents |
| 2009-10-13 | U.S. Patent No. 7,602,773 Issues |
| 2010-03-30 | U.S. Patent No. 7,688,814 Issues |
| 2022-09-30 | Plaintiff allegedly sends notice to Defendant |
| 2022-10-25 | Defendant allegedly responds to Plaintiff's notice |
| 2025-06-20 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,602,773 - “Transferring Data to a Target Device,” issued October 13, 2009
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes conventional layered communication protocols, such as TCP/IP, used to transmit data between devices (’773 Patent, col. 1:12-48). The patent addresses the need for more direct and efficient communication methods in "disaggregated" systems, where functional components (e.g., storage, controllers) are not physically co-located but are connected via a network (’773 Patent, col. 4:42-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a device can instruct another device on a network to initiate a data transfer with a third device (’773 Patent, col. 3:1-13). This is accomplished using packets that contain addresses corresponding not just to a target device, but to specific "storage locations" within devices, enabling more granular, peer-to-peer control over data movement across the network (’773 Patent, Abstract; col. 25:1-15).
- Technical Importance: This approach is designed to facilitate communication in masterless, peer-to-peer networks and support disaggregated architectures, where system resources can be flexibly shared and accessed over a network rather than being confined within a single physical unit (’773 Patent, col. 2:50-61).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶17).
- The essential elements of independent claim 11, an apparatus claim, are:
- A network interface for network communication.
- Storage with a storage location.
- A controller configured to:
- Receive a first packet from a first device, where the packet includes a command, a first address corresponding to the apparatus's own storage location, and a second address corresponding to a second device's storage location.
- Transmit a second packet to the second device to execute a data transfer between the two storage locations, based on the received command.
- The complaint also makes broad allegations of infringement of "one or more claims," which may implicate dependent claims (Compl. ¶16).
U.S. Patent No. 7,688,814 - “Methods of Conveying Information Using Fixed Sized Packets,” issued March 30, 2010
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a challenge in network communication where performance can be hindered if data packets are not sized appropriately for the target device's processing capabilities (’814 Patent, col. 2:35-40). Specifically, a target device may have a smaller "native block size" than the sending device.
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a first, inner packet is generated with a data portion sized to match the target device's smaller native block size. This optimized inner packet, containing a "first segment of a split identifier," is then encapsulated within a larger, second packet for network transmission. The outer packet contains a "second segment of the split identifier," and together the segments allow for correct routing and processing (’814 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:43-58).
- Technical Importance: By sizing data payloads to the target's native block size, this method aims to increase overall performance by reducing processing time at the receiving end, as the target can handle the data more efficiently without needing to reorder or reassemble data from non-optimally sized packets (’814 Patent, col. 2:35-40).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶28).
- The essential elements of independent claim 11, an apparatus claim, are:
- A controller configured to:
- Generate a first packet with a data portion sized to a target device's native block size (which is smaller than the apparatus's native block size) and containing a first segment of a split identifier.
- Encapsulate this first packet into a second packet, which has a control portion containing a second segment of the split identifier.
- A network interface, coupled to the controller, configured to transmit the packet to the target device.
- A controller configured to:
- The complaint broadly alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’814 Patent (Compl. ¶27).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies QNAP Routers (QHora & QMiro Series), QNAP Guardian Series (QGD) Smart PoE Switches, and QNAP SD-WAN Solutions (QuWAN) as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶12). The QHora-322 router is used as a primary exemplary product in the infringement allegations (Compl. ¶¶17, 28).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are network infrastructure devices that manage and route data traffic (Compl. ¶¶12-13). The complaint alleges these products perform the patented methods of packet transmission and routing. As evidentiary support, the complaint provides a screenshot from a QNAP product's user interface for configuring firewall and Network Address Translation (NAT) rules. This screenshot depicts a "Firewall Rule Table" for controlling packet flow based on protocol, source, and destination. (Compl. ¶19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'773 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a network interface configured to communicatively couple the apparatus to a network; | The QHora-322 comprises a network interface to connect to a network. | ¶18 | col. 7:46-54 |
| storage having a storage location; | The QHora-322 comprises storage with a storage location. | ¶18 | col. 7:26-34 |
| a controller...configured to receive, from a first device...a first packet including a command, a first address that corresponds to the storage location of the apparatus, and a second address that corresponds to a storage location of a second device; | The controller in the QHora-322 is allegedly configured to receive a packet containing a command and addresses for two different devices. The complaint points to the product's firewall functionality, which processes packets based on source and destination addresses. | ¶18, ¶19 | col. 25:40-45 |
| a controller...configured to transmit, to the second device...a second packet to effect a transfer of data between the storage location of the apparatus and the storage location of the second device based...on the command. | The controller is allegedly configured to transmit a packet to effect a data transfer. The complaint references the product's NAT and firewall capabilities, which forward packets to other devices based on defined rules. | ¶18, ¶19 | col. 25:46-52 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question is whether a standard network address, such as an IP address or port number used in a router's firewall or NAT configuration, meets the claim limitation of an "address that corresponds to a storage location." A defendant may argue that the patent requires a more specific, granular address pointing to a location within a storage medium, as distinct from a general network address for an entire device.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that a router's standard packet forwarding and NAT functions "effect a transfer of data between the storage location of the apparatus and the storage location of the second device." The court may need to determine if this standard routing behavior performs the specific peer-to-peer storage operation described in the patent, or if there is a technical distinction.
'814 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a controller configured to generate a first packet having a data portion that is at least approximately equal in size to a native block size of a target device, which is smaller than a native block size of the apparatus... | The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that the QHora-322's controller performs this function but provides no specific facts regarding how the product determines or uses a target's "native block size." | ¶29 | col. 25:3-9 |
| ...the first packet further having a first segment of a split identifier... | The complaint alleges the packet contains a "first segment of a split identifier" without providing factual detail on what this identifier is or how it is generated or used by the accused product. | ¶29 | col. 25:9-10 |
| ...the controller further configured to encapsulate the first packet into a data portion of a second packet, the second packet having a control portion with a second segment of the split identifier; | The complaint alleges the controller performs this specific two-level encapsulation with a split identifier, but the provided visual evidence on firewall/NAT functionality does not directly address this process. | ¶29, ¶30 | col. 25:10-14 |
| a network interface coupled to the controller, and configured to transmit the packet to the target device across a network. | The QHora-322 comprises a network interface configured to transmit packets across a network. | ¶29 | col. 25:15-17 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's allegations for infringement of the ’814 Patent lack specific factual support for the core technical requirements of claim 11. It does not explain how the accused products are alleged to (1) generate packets based on a target's "native block size," (2) use a "split identifier," or (3) perform the claimed encapsulation method. The viability of this infringement theory may depend entirely on evidence produced during discovery.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- Term: "address that corresponds to a storage location" (’773 Patent, cl. 11)
- Context and Importance: The interpretation of this term is fundamental to the infringement analysis for the ’773 Patent. Plaintiff's case appears to depend on this term being broad enough to read on standard network addresses (e.g., IP addresses), while a defense would likely argue for a narrower, more specific meaning.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that a general network address can fulfill this role, stating that "a single network address can be used to both route a packet across a network to a device and within the device to a particular storage area" (’773 Patent, col. 4:27-30).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes a more structured model where storage is divided into partitions and blocks, identified by multi-segment addresses (e.g.,
"(partition, block)"), suggesting a more granular addressing scheme than a single IP address for a device (’773 Patent, Fig. 7; col. 7:4-15). This could support an argument that the term requires an address that specifies a location within a device's storage, not just the device itself.
- Term: "native block size of a target device" (’814 Patent, cl. 11)
- Context and Importance: This term is the technical linchpin of the ’814 Patent's asserted claim. The infringement allegation stands or falls on whether the accused routers perform any function related to a target's "native block size."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a formal definition, which could open the door for a plaintiff to argue for a broad, functional meaning related to any data chunk size a target device is optimized to process.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links this concept directly to physical device characteristics, stating, "limiting packet data block sizes to be equal to the smallest physical block of a device a packet is being sent to will result in overall performance increases" (’814 Patent, col. 2:35-38). This language suggests "native block size" refers to a hardware-level attribute, like a disk sector size, which a general-purpose network router may not typically consider when forwarding packets.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents, asserting that Defendant's user manuals and other publications provide instructions that encourage and facilitate direct infringement by end-users (Compl. ¶¶22, 33).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The alleged bases for knowledge include (1) prior lawsuits filed by Plaintiff against Defendant's direct competitors on the same patents and (2) direct notice of infringement provided by Plaintiff to Defendant via correspondence on September 30, 2022 (Compl. ¶¶21, 32). The complaint further alleges willful blindness, claiming Defendant maintains a policy of not reviewing the patents of others (Compl. ¶21).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "address that corresponds to a storage location," which the ’773 Patent ties to disaggregated storage systems, be construed broadly enough to cover the general-purpose network addresses (IP addresses and ports) managed by an accused router’s standard firewall and NAT functions?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Does discovery evidence show that the accused QNAP products perform the highly specific functions required by claim 11 of the ’814 Patent—namely, generating packets based on a "native block size of a target device" and using a "split identifier"—or do the infringement allegations for this patent fail for lack of factual support?
- A final critical question will concern scienter: Can Plaintiff successfully establish that Defendant possessed the requisite knowledge and intent for willful infringement, based on the allegations of notice through prior litigation against competitors and direct pre-suit correspondence?