DCT

2:25-cv-00700

Novacloud Licensing LLC v. IBM Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00700, E.D. Tex., 10/13/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because IBM is authorized to do business in Texas, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and operates regular and established places of business, including a data center in Plano, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud computing infrastructure and services infringe six patents related to cloud resource management, network monitoring, load balancing, and service orchestration.
  • Technical Context: The patents address foundational technologies for managing and optimizing the performance, allocation, and monitoring of resources within large-scale data centers and cloud computing environments.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff contacted Defendant in February 2025 to discuss licensing, held a teleconference where technical areas and accused products were identified, and that Defendant subsequently declined to enter into a non-disclosure agreement, prompting the lawsuit. The complaint also notes that the USPTO issued a Certificate of Correction for U.S. Patent No. 10,691,480 on September 30, 2025.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-02-17 Earliest Priority Date for ’348 Patent
2008-01-23 Earliest Priority Date for ’028 Patent
2011-07-08 Earliest Priority Date for ’651 Patent
2013-03-19 ’028 Patent Issued
2013-03-26 ’348 Patent Issued
2013-05-15 Earliest Priority Date for ’063 Patent
2013-10-23 Earliest Priority Date for ’262 Patent
2015-12-29 ’651 Patent Issued
2016-11-08 ’063 Patent Issued
2017-08-30 Earliest Priority Date for ’480 Patent
2018-02-20 ’262 Patent Issued
2020-06-23 ’480 Patent Issued
2025-02-15 Plaintiff NovaCloud allegedly contacted Defendant IBM
2025-02-20 Parties allegedly held a teleconference
2025-02-21 Plaintiff allegedly sent a draft NDA to Defendant
2025-03-15 Defendant allegedly informed Plaintiff it would not enter an NDA
2025-09-30 Certificate of Correction issued for ’480 Patent
2025-10-13 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,401,028 - Selection of an Edge Node in a Fixed Access Communication Network (Issued March 19, 2013)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problems with conventional "static pooling" of network resources, where gateway and server nodes are pre-configured. This approach is rigid, requires considerable manual work to update, and cannot adapt to dynamic network conditions like traffic load or node status, which can lead to inefficient resource use and service degradation (’028 Patent, col. 1:47 - 2:48).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized "selection logic" node that dynamically allocates resources. When a host requests a network service, the selection node obtains real-time data about the status, capabilities, and topology of a pool of edge nodes from a dynamically updated database. Based on this current information, it selects the most suitable edge node and directs the host to establish communication with it, optimizing the connection based on live network conditions (’028 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-67; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This method introduced a more intelligent and flexible approach to network resource allocation, enabling networks to automatically adapt to changing loads and topology, thereby improving reliability and efficiency over static, manually configured systems (’028 Patent, col. 2:51-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶83).
  • Claim 1 requires a method for selecting an edge node, comprising the essential elements of:
    • At a selection node, receiving a request for a network service from a host entity;
    • Obtaining, from a dynamically updated database, data comprising information relating to the status and capabilities of each edge node;
    • Selecting an edge node from the plurality of edge nodes on the basis of the retrieved data, where the selected node provides a path for the service; and
    • Sending a response to the host entity that includes information identifying the selected edge node.

U.S. Patent No. 8,407,348 - Monitoring Network Usage (Issued March 26, 2013)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a tradeoff in network monitoring. Systems at the time either collected low-resolution data (e.g., simple averages), which was insufficient for verifying detailed Service Level Agreement (SLA) compliance, or they collected high-resolution, continuous data, which consumed "an exorbitant cost... in terms of memory requirements" (Compl. ¶¶ 39-40; ’348 Patent, col. 1:45-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a memory-efficient method for creating a representative summary of network usage. Instead of storing raw data, the system records a small set of specific metrics over a recording period: (1) the total time a service was "active" (i.e., usage was above a baseline activity threshold), (2) the average data load specifically during that "active" time, and (3) the total time the service was "saturated" (i.e., usage was above a higher saturation threshold) (’348 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:5-14).
  • Technical Importance: This solution allows network operators to obtain a meaningful and actionable record of user service usage for SLA verification and resource planning without the prohibitive data storage costs associated with granular, continuous monitoring (Compl. ¶41).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶91).
  • Claim 1 requires a method of monitoring a user's usage of a network service, comprising the essential elements of:
    • Recording a length of time that a service in the network was considered active relative to a predefined activity threshold value;
    • Recording an average loading of the network service during the time that the network service was considered active; and
    • Recording a length of time in which the network service was considered saturated relative to a predefined saturation threshold value.

U.S. Patent No. 9,225,651 - Method and Apparatus for Load Balancing (Issued December 29, 2015)

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,225,651, "Method and Apparatus for Load Balancing," issued December 29, 2015 (Compl. ¶50).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses techniques for "load balancing in scheduling traffic flows in networks" (Compl. ¶¶ 52, 54). The method involves selecting a target processing engine (PE) for a data packet, determining if that PE's load exceeds a threshold, and if so, updating the selection based on the traffic flow's scheduling status to maintain flow integrity (Compl. ¶54).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 and dependent Claim 2 (Compl. ¶99).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that IBM's general datacenter and network infrastructure, which performs load balancing, infringes the ’651 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 80, 100).

U.S. Patent No. 9,491,063 - Method and Apparatus for Providing Network Services Orchestration (Issued November 8, 2016)

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,491,063, "Method and Apparatus for Providing Network Services Orchestration," issued November 8, 2016 (Compl. ¶57).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for "network services orchestration" run on a network controller (Compl. ¶¶ 59, 61). It describes a module with distinct northbound and southbound APIs for managing service instances, monitoring statistics, managing VMs, and pushing availability changes to a steering module that directs traffic flows (Compl. ¶61).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 10 (Compl. ¶107).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that IBM's cloud infrastructure, which orchestrates network services, infringes the ’063 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 80, 108).

U.S. Patent No. 9,900,262 - Methods, Nodes and Computer Program for Enabling of Resource Component Allocation (Issued February 20, 2018)

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,900,262, "Methods, Nodes and Computer Program for Enabling of Resource Component Allocation," issued February 20, 2018 (Compl. ¶64).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses "improved resource management and resource utilization in shared environments" (Compl. ¶66). The claimed method involves a resource manager that determines a performance metric, instructs hosts to measure it, receives resource frames back from the hosts, and determines resource allocation based on combining those frames to form a dynamic operations profile (Compl. ¶68).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶115).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that IBM's cloud infrastructure, which manages and allocates resources in a shared environment, infringes the ’262 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 80, 116).

U.S. Patent No. 10,691,480 - Apparatus and Method for Configuring and Enabling Virtual Applications (Issued June 23, 2020)

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,691,480, "Apparatus and Method for Configuring and Enabling Virtual Applications," issued June 23, 2020 (Compl. ¶71).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses techniques for "configuring and monitoring a virtual application in a cloud environment" (’480 Patent, col. 1:16-17). The method involves modifying a virtual machine (VM) image to include configuration and monitoring instructions, modifying a separate application VM image to include injection data (like scripts or keys), and modifying a deployment descriptor to cause the first "injection VM" to be deployed alongside the application VM to perform the configuration (Compl. ¶76).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 13 (Compl. ¶123).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that IBM's cloud infrastructure, which configures and deploys virtual applications, infringes the ’480 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 80, 124).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are broadly defined as "IBM's datacenter and network infrastructure and/or cloud computing services" (Compl. ¶80). The complaint specifically names "IBM Cloud Pak, Cloud DNS Services, and DataPower Gateway" as examples (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint characterizes the accused instrumentalities as Infrastructure-as-a-Service and Platform-as-a-Service cloud computing platforms that are integral to modern datacenters and content delivery networks (Compl. ¶11). While the complaint does not detail the specific technical operation of the accused products, it states that Plaintiff identified to IBM several implicated technical areas: "edge node selection, internal network virtualization, network monitoring, application allocation and placement, load balancing, VM allocation, and SLA compliance" (Compl. ¶17). These allegations position the accused products as performing the core resource management, orchestration, and monitoring functions addressed by the patents-in-suit. The complaint includes a table derived from county appraisal district websites to identify IBM’s business properties in the district, including a property in Plano valued at over $47 million (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of each patent but states that exemplary, non-limiting claim charts are attached as Exhibits 7 through 12 (Compl. ¶¶ 84, 92, 100, 108, 116, 124). As these exhibits were not provided, a tabular claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

  • ’028 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that IBM's Accused Infrastructure and Services perform the method of Claim 1 for selecting an edge node (Compl. ¶84). The implied theory is that when a user or application requests a service via IBM's cloud, IBM's infrastructure dynamically selects a server, gateway, or other "edge node" from a pool of available resources. This selection is allegedly based on obtaining current data regarding the status and capabilities of those nodes from a database or similar repository, and the identity of the selected node is then communicated back to complete the connection.
  • ’348 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that IBM's Accused Infrastructure and Services practice the method of Claim 1 for monitoring network usage (Compl. ¶92). The implied theory is that IBM's monitoring systems, likely for purposes of managing SLAs and network resources, record a set of specific, memory-efficient statistics rather than raw usage data. These statistics allegedly correspond to the claimed elements: the duration of time a service is "active," the average load during that active period, and the duration of time the service is "saturated."
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A potential point of contention for the ’028 Patent may be whether IBM's highly virtualized and software-defined cloud environment constitutes a "fixed access communications network" as the term is used in the patent. For the ’348 Patent, a question may arise as to whether the metrics IBM's systems actually collect correspond directly to the specific three-part monitoring scheme required by Claim 1.
    • Technical Questions: A key technical question for the ’028 Patent will be what specific system within IBM's infrastructure performs the role of the "selection node" and what constitutes the "dynamically updated database" it consults. For the ’348 Patent, the analysis may focus on whether IBM’s systems calculate "average loading" only "during the time that the network service was considered active," as required by the claim, or whether it uses a different averaging methodology.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "dynamically updated database" (’028 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention's departure from prior art static pooling methods. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the system IBM uses to store and access information about its network resources qualifies as a "database" and whether its update mechanism is "dynamic" in the sense contemplated by the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the database being updated by a "Database synchronization function" which can use various inputs, including a "topology discovery function" and a "supervision function" (’028 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 9:4-17). This suggests the term could cover any repository of network state information that is periodically refreshed with current data.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific examples of how the database is updated, such as by "listening to OSPF advertisements sent by network routers" (’028 Patent, col. 9:8-10). A party could argue that the term should be limited to systems updated via similar network protocol monitoring, rather than a more abstract management plane.

  • Term: "recording an average loading of the network service during the time that the network service was considered active" (’348 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This limitation requires a specific, conditional calculation: the average is not a simple rolling average but is calculated only for periods when the service is "active." Infringement will turn on whether the accused system performs this precise calculation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary describes the goal as obtaining "a useful and effective representation of usage" (’348 Patent, col. 3:12-14). This purpose-oriented language may support an interpretation where any method that isolates and averages load during periods of significant activity would meet the claim.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific formula for updating the utilization statistic (UTIL), which is only performed if a sampling period is "declared active" (’348 Patent, col. 7:1-10, eq. 1). This could support a narrower construction requiring the accused system to segregate "active" periods and compute the average exclusively for those periods.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all asserted patents. The basis cited is "publications of IBM's Accused Infrastructure and Services," which allegedly encourage and instruct others (e.g., customers) to use the infringing functionalities (Compl. ¶¶ 85, 93, 101, 109, 117, 125).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge, stemming from communications initiated by NovaCloud in February 2025, which included a teleconference and a slide deck identifying "technical areas within NovaCloud's portfolio applicable to IBM, as well as IBM products and services that were implicated" (Compl. ¶¶ 15-17, 87, 95).

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

  • A central issue will be one of technological translation: can claim terms rooted in the networking architectures of the mid-to-late 2000s (e.g., fixed access network, specific load balancing policies) be construed to read on IBM's current, highly-abstracted, and software-defined cloud services? The dispute may focus on whether IBM’s modern infrastructure is a direct evolution of the claimed technologies or a fundamentally different paradigm.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of operational specificity: because the complaint makes broad allegations against complex infrastructure, the case will likely depend on whether discovery reveals that the internal operations of IBM's systems perform the precise, ordered steps required by the asserted claims. For example, does IBM's monitoring system record the exact three metrics of the ’348 Patent, or does it use an alternative, albeit functionally similar, scheme?
  • Finally, the detailed allegations of pre-suit notice raise a critical question regarding corporate conduct: will the court find that IBM's decision to cease licensing discussions after being presented with specific allegations of infringement constitutes objective recklessness, potentially exposing the company to a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages?