Storage Vectors LLC v. Nubia Technology Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Storage Vectors LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Nubia Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00857, E.D. Tex., 08/25/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because the defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to methods for storing different types of data on a storage medium with varying levels of error tolerance and density.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses optimizing data storage capacity by treating error-tolerant data (e.g., streaming video) differently from error-intolerant data (e.g., system files), which is significant in consumer electronics and data storage industries.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims priority back to a provisional application filed in 2007. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

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 (’426 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that conventional storage devices like disk drives and flash memory are "over designed for AV data storage" because they provide a very low bit error rate (BER) (e.g., less than 10⁻¹⁴) that is unnecessary for error-tolerant data like streaming video, which can function well with a much higher BER (e.g., 10⁻⁶) (’426 Patent, col. 2:5-16). This over-engineering results in inefficient use of the storage medium’s potential capacity.
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a storage device receives both General Purpose (GP) data and Error Tolerant or Streaming (ETS) data and stores them using different methods. The ETS data is stored using a format that trades a higher acceptable error rate for increased storage density, while the GP data is stored using a traditional high-integrity method (’426 Patent, Abstract). Figure 1 illustrates a storage device that internally separates GP and ETS data, formatting them for different target bit error rates (e.g., 10⁻¹⁵ BER for GP vs. 10⁻⁹ BER for ETS) (’426 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows a single storage device to dynamically allocate its physical resources to maximize capacity for media-heavy applications without compromising the integrity required for critical system or user data (’426 Patent, col. 4:55-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and references "Exemplary '426 Patent Claims" in an exhibit that was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's core concept.
• 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;
  • 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.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

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

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context. It alleges that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '426 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that "Exhibit 2 includes charts comparing the Exemplary '426 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶16). However, this exhibit was not provided with the complaint. The infringement theory must therefore be summarized from the complaint’s narrative allegations.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendant directly infringes the ’426 Patent by making, using, selling, and importing the accused products, and also by having its employees internally test and use them (Compl. ¶11-12). The core allegation is that these unspecified products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '426 Patent Claims" by implementing the patented technology (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: The complaint lacks specific factual allegations tying any particular product to the patent claims. A central question will be whether discovery produces evidence that the defendant's products perform the claimed method of using distinct "physical storage format attributes" for different data types.
• Scope Questions: A likely point of dispute will be whether the accused products' methods for handling different data types constitute a "different physical storage format attribute" as required by the claim. The dispute may focus on whether the differentiation occurs at a purely logical software level versus a lower, physical level on the storage medium itself.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "physical storage format attribute" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention, as the differentiation between the "first" and "second" attributes defines the infringing act. The construction of this term will determine whether infringement requires a tangible change to how data is stored on the physical medium (e.g., track spacing, cell voltage levels) or if it can be met by higher-level differences in data processing by a storage controller.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad 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, or reaction to failed storage verification" (’426 Patent, col. 2:40-44). A party could argue this list includes attributes that are implemented by a controller's logic, not just the physical state of the media.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides specific, concrete physical examples. For disk drives, it lists "spacing between tracks; overlap between tracks; spiral track formatting," and for flash memories, it lists "levels per cell and number of cells" (’426 Patent, col. 2:45-49). A party could argue these examples limit the term's scope to tangible, physical-level modifications of the storage medium.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that the defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users to use the products in a manner that infringes the ’426 Patent (Compl. ¶14). The specific factual support for this allegation is purportedly contained in the unfiled Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation appears to be based on post-suit knowledge. The complaint explicitly asserts that "The service of this Complaint... constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" and that the defendant continues to infringe despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

This case, as presented in the complaint, will likely turn on two fundamental issues that must be developed during discovery and claim construction.

• An Evidentiary Question of Fact: Does the defendant’s technology actually differentiate between data types (e.g., streaming vs. general) by storing them with distinct physical attributes? The complaint is devoid of specific factual allegations, making the existence of an evidentiary basis for infringement the first and most critical hurdle.
• A Legal Question of Definitional Scope: What is the proper construction of the term "physical storage format attribute"? The resolution of this case may depend on whether this term is construed narrowly to require a literal, physical modification on the storage medium itself (favoring a non-infringement argument if the accused products operate at a higher logical level) or broadly to encompass logical differences in how a controller processes and formats data for storage.