Storage Vectors LLC v. Vertu Intl Corp Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Storage Vectors LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Vertu International Corporation Limited (Hong Kong)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00861, E.D. Tex., 08/25/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to methods for storing different types of data on a single storage device using distinct physical formats to optimize for storage density and error tolerance.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the trade-off between data integrity and storage capacity in devices like hard disk drives and flash memory, particularly for handling error-tolerant data streams such as audio/video content.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant 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, issued October 9, 2018 (the “’426 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section asserts that conventional data storage devices, such as disk drives and flash memory, are “over designed” for storing audio/visual (AV) data streams. (’426 Patent, col. 2:7-9). These devices use a single, high-integrity storage method designed for general purpose (GP) data where even a single-bit error can be critical, a standard that is unnecessarily stringent and inefficient for error-tolerant or streaming (ETS) data like video, which can withstand some errors without perceptible loss of quality. ( Compl. ¶9; ’426 Patent, col. 1:49-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for a single storage device to differentiate between GP data and ETS data, storing each type using a distinct physical storage method. (’426 Patent, Abstract). For ETS data, the device can employ a format that increases storage density—for example, by increasing the bits per inch (BPI) or tracks per inch (TPI) on a hard disk, or by increasing the number of voltage levels per cell (LPC) in flash memory—at the expense of a higher raw bit error rate (BER). (’426 Patent, col. 4:24-41, col. 5:19-29). For GP data, the device continues to use a conventional, lower-density, high-integrity format. This dual-format approach, illustrated conceptually in Figure 1, allows the device to significantly increase its effective capacity for error-tolerant content while maintaining reliability for critical system data. (’426 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 3:20-29).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows storage device manufacturers to increase the advertised capacity of a device for specific applications, such as digital video recorders, without changing the underlying hardware, by better aligning the physical storage resources with the requirements of the data being stored. (’426 Patent, col. 4:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’426 Patent, referring to "Exemplary '426 Patent Claims" in an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core inventive method.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A method of storing data on a storage system comprising:
  • 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; and
  • 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 does not specify any asserted dependent claims. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not name any specific products, models, or services. (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality. It alleges in general terms that Defendant has been "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" products that practice the claimed technology. (Compl. ¶11). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to claim charts in an unprovided "Exhibit 2." (Compl. ¶16-17). The narrative alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '426 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '426 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶16). Without the referenced exhibit, a detailed analysis of the infringement theory is not possible.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent claims and the general nature of the dispute, the infringement analysis will likely raise several technical and legal questions:
  • Technical Questions: Does the accused technology actually use physically distinct storage formats for different types of data? For instance, what evidence does the complaint provide that the accused devices alter physical parameters like track spacing on a disk or charge levels in a flash cell based on whether the data is identified as "streaming" or "general purpose"?
  • Scope Questions: How do the accused products differentiate between "general purpose data" and "streaming data" as those terms are used in the patent? A central question may be whether the accused devices perform this differentiation at the physical storage controller level, as contemplated by the patent, or at a higher software layer in a manner that does not alter the underlying "physical storage format attribute."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "physical storage format attribute"
• Context and Importance: This term is the central limitation of independent claim 1, as the core of the alleged invention is the use of different such attributes for different data types. The definition of "physical" will determine whether the claim is limited to fundamental changes in the physical storage medium (e.g., track density) or if it can also cover different logical formatting or error-correction schemes applied to physically uniform storage blocks.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific, physically-grounded examples of these attributes. For hard disk drives, it lists increased "Bits per inch (BPI) and tracks per inch (TPI)" and arranging tracks in a "continuous spiral pattern" instead of concentric circles. (’426 Patent, col. 4:29-30, 4:46-48). For flash memory, it describes increasing the "levels per cell (LPC)" to achieve a higher "bits per cell (BPC)." (’426 Patent, col. 5:47-53). These examples may support a construction limited to tangible, physical-level modifications to data storage.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 2 lists several ways the storage medium can be "utilized differently," including "block size, storage of error correction codes, [and] utilization of error correction codes." (’426 Patent, col. 10:28-33). While these appear in a dependent claim, a party might argue they inform the meaning of the parent term, suggesting that different error correction schemes could qualify as different "physical storage format attributes."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had "actual knowledge" of its infringement at least since being served with the complaint and corresponding claim charts. (Compl. ¶13, ¶15). This allegation appears to be directed at establishing a basis for post-suit willful infringement.

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

This dispute will likely focus on deep technical questions regarding the operation of the accused storage devices, with the outcome hinging on claim construction and the evidence adduced in discovery.

• A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Can Plaintiff produce evidence that the accused products actually write data to their physical storage media using two or more distinct formats—for example, by measurably changing track density or cell charge levels—depending on the data type? Or do the devices apply all modifications at a logical level above a uniform physical storage layer?
• A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: Will the court construe the term "physical storage format attribute" narrowly, limiting it to the specific physical-level examples in the specification (e.g., TPI, BPI, levels-per-cell)? Or will it adopt a broader construction that could encompass differences in error correction schemes or logical block sizes, potentially expanding the scope of the claim?