Vertiv Corp v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Vertiv Corporation (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Valtrus Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. (both Ireland)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Nixon Peabody LLP; Davis Firm PC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00084, E.D. Tex., 02/02/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the dispute occurred in the district, including Valtrus's patent enforcement actions against Vertiv's customers who operate data centers in the forum.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff Vertiv seeks a declaratory judgment that its data center cooling products do not infringe, and that the claims are invalid for, three expired patents owned by Defendant Valtrus related to data center temperature management.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods and systems for efficiently cooling racks of heat-producing electronic equipment in data centers, a critical factor for operational reliability and energy consumption in the IT industry.
• Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action follows a series of patent infringement lawsuits and notice letters from Valtrus directed at Vertiv's customers, alleging their use of Vertiv products infringes the patents-in-suit. The complaint notes that Valtrus, which acquired the patents from Hewlett Packard Enterprises, has a pattern of suing customers and settling before a decision on the merits. All three patents-in-suit have expired but remain enforceable for past infringement damages.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,854,284 - “Cooling of Data Centers”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,854,284, “Cooling of Data Centers,” issued February 15, 2005.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional data center cooling systems as inefficient because they often operate at or near maximum power, a "worst-case scenario," regardless of the actual, distributed heat load, and they remove air indiscriminately, wasting energy Compl. Ex. A, col. 1:57-2:14
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more intelligent system featuring a plenum (an air-handling space) with dynamically controllable returns. These returns can vary the removal of heated air from specific locations, allowing the system to target hotter areas. The system further claims a method of sensing the pressure of the cooling fluid within the plenum and using that measurement to control the overall intake of the cooling system, thereby matching cooling effort to the actual need Compl. Ex. A, col. 3:1-4:24 Compl. ¶68 The complaint provides a schematic from the patent showing the data center layout with a return air plenum (22) above the racks (18a-d) Compl. ¶68, FIG. 1
• Technical Importance: This approach represented a shift toward adaptive, localized cooling control, aiming to reduce the significant energy consumption associated with brute-force data center cooling methods Compl. Ex. A, col. 2:62-3:4

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies independent method claim 10 as being asserted by Valtrus Compl. ¶70
• The essential elements of Claim 10 include:
  • activating a cooling system and opening a plurality of returns that are in fluid communication with a plenum;
  • sensing a pressure of said cooling fluid in the plenum;
  • determining if the sensed pressure is within a predetermined range; and
  • varying an intake of said cooling system through the returns in response to the sensed pressure falling outside the predetermined range.
• The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement for all claims of the patent Compl. ¶101

U.S. Patent No. 6,868,682 - “Agent Based Control Method and System for Energy Management”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,868,682, “Agent Based Control Method and System for Energy Management,” issued March 22, 2005.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inefficiency of conventional Computer Room Air Conditioning (CRAC) units that do not vary their output based on the distributed needs of the data center and measure temperature only at the CRAC unit itself, not where the heat is actually being produced Compl. Ex. B, col. 2:11-29
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a hierarchical control method using multiple software "agents." A "first agent" (e.g., a rack agent) attempts to maintain temperature locally. If it cannot, it requests a "second agent" (e.g., a row agent) to process the data and "redistribute the cooling fluid." A third-level agent (e.g., a CRAC agent) can be called upon if the lower-level agents cannot resolve the issue. This creates a scalable, distributed intelligence system for energy management Compl. Ex. B, Abstract col. 4:63-5:2 The specification describes these agents controlling physical structures like "rack vent tiles" and "row vent tiles" Compl. Ex. B, col. 13:18-42
• Technical Importance: This patent describes an early model for applying distributed, agent-based artificial intelligence to the physical-world problem of data center thermal management, allowing for more granular and cooperative control than centralized systems.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies independent method claim 1 as being asserted by Valtrus Compl. ¶94
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • receiving and processing sensory temperature data by a "first agent" in a hierarchy of agents;
  • adjusting a delivery rate for a "cooling fluid" using the first agent; and
  • requesting a "second agent" to process the sensory data when the first agent cannot maintain the temperature range, "unless the second agent redistributes the cooling fluid being delivered to one or more areas in the data center."
• The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement for all claims of the patent Compl. ¶108

U.S. Patent No. 6,868,683 - “Cooling of Data Centers”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,868,683, “Cooling of Data Centers,” issued March 22, 2005 Compl. ¶51
• Technology Synopsis: The complaint states this patent is directed to controlling data center temperature by sensing temperatures at the equipment racks Compl. ¶78 The claims are alleged to require a specific two-step sequence: an initial step of varying the removal of cooling fluid (warm air) from the racks, followed by a subsequent step of varying the supply of cooling fluid (cool air) in response to the first step Compl. ¶81 The complaint includes a diagram of the data center layout to illustrate the system context Compl. ¶79, FIG. 1
• Asserted Claims: Independent method claim 10 Compl. ¶82
• Accused Features: Vertiv’s iCOM and iCOM-S controllers, which are alleged to only adjust overall fan speed based on temperature and are incapable of performing the claimed two-step sequence of independently varying removal and then responsively varying supply Compl. ¶¶84-85

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Vertiv’s Liebert CW, CWA, DS, DSE, PDX, and PCW data center cooling units, as controlled by Liebert iCOM and iCOM-S control systems Compl. ¶62

Functionality and Market Context

• These products are critical infrastructure components used to manage the thermal environment in data centers operated by Vertiv's customers Compl. ¶¶2, 7 Based on the complaint, the relevant functionality of the iCOM controllers involves adjusting the speed of fans based on sensed temperature to manage cooling Compl. ¶85
• The complaint affirmatively pleads that the products are incapable of performing the claimed methods. Specifically, it alleges the products do not have components to sense pressure in a return air plenum, cannot control a plurality of "returns," and do not perform the sequential "vary removal, then vary supply" steps Compl. ¶¶73-74, 76, 84 For the '682 Patent, the complaint alleges the products use two distinct cooling modes with two separate and different cooling fluids (glycol-water and a two-phase refrigerant), which it argues is technically different from the claimed agents operating on and redistributing a single cooling fluid Compl. ¶95

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 6,854,284 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Question: A primary factual question is whether any component or operation within the Vertiv system could be characterized by Valtrus as "sensing a pressure" in a "plenum." Vertiv's complaint presents this as a clear technical impossibility, stating its products do not measure pressure in the space above the ceiling Compl. ¶73 The case may turn on what evidence Valtrus can produce to the contrary.
• Scope Question: The dispute raises the question of the required structure for a "plenum" and "returns." The patent illustrates a specific architecture with a lowered ceiling creating a return plenum Compl. Ex. A, Fig. 1 A key legal question will be whether the claims are limited to this disclosed structure or could read on different data center air-handling configurations where Vertiv's products are used.

U.S. Patent No. 6,868,682 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Question: Can two distinct cooling systems (one using glycol-water, the other refrigerant) operating in separate physical circuits be considered a "first agent" and a "second agent" that "redistribute" a single "cooling fluid" as required by the claim? Vertiv alleges this is a functional impossibility Compl. ¶¶95-96
• Scope Question: A critical issue for claim construction will be the meaning of "redistributes the cooling fluid." Does this require physically re-routing the same substance, as Vertiv argues the patent's focus on air vents suggests? Or could Valtrus argue for a broader functional meaning, where activating the second cooling mode "redistributes" the overall cooling effect within the data center, even if it uses a different medium?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "sensing a pressure of said cooling fluid in the plenum" (’284 Patent, Claim 10)

Context and Importance

• This term is the foundation of Vertiv's non-infringement argument for the ’284 Patent. If the accused products do not perform this specific sensing step, the claim cannot be infringed. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to tie the claimed method to a specific physical measurement that Vertiv alleges its products are not equipped to perform.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party seeking a broader definition might argue that any sensor data that can be correlated to plenum pressure (e.g., airflow or fan power draw) could satisfy the "sensing" limitation, even without a dedicated pressure transducer. However, the patent language itself does not explicitly suggest such an indirect method.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides strong support for a narrower reading, explicitly disclosing a "pressure sensor 56" configured to "measure the pressure of the returning cooling fluid in the space 22 [the plenum]" and using those measurements to control the fan Compl. Ex. A, col. 7:25-37 Figure 2B also distinctly illustrates a "PLENUM PRESSURE SENSOR" (56-58) as part of the control scheme.

The Term: "redistributes the cooling fluid" (’682 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

• The definition of this term is central to whether two separate cooling circuits using different fluids can meet a limitation that seemingly implies repositioning a single fluid. Vertiv's non-infringement case for the ’682 Patent hinges on a narrow interpretation.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract states the second agent acts "unless the second agent redistributes the cooling fluid being delivered to one or more areas in the data center." A party might argue this focuses on the outcome (delivery to different areas) rather than the mechanism, allowing for different cooling sources to contribute to the overall "redistribution" of thermal management.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes agents controlling "rack vent tiles" and "row vent tiles" to manage airflow Compl. Ex. B, col. 13:18-42 This context strongly suggests that "redistributes" refers to the physical act of redirecting a common cooling medium (like air) from one path to another, supporting Vertiv's argument that its system, with two distinct and separate fluid loops, does not perform this function.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• This being a declaratory judgment action, Vertiv seeks a declaration of non-infringement under any theory, including indirect infringement Compl. ¶132 The complaint notes that Valtrus's infringement assertions against Vertiv's customers "implicitly give rise to theories of direct and indirect infringement... against Vertiv," presumably on the basis that Vertiv supplies the allegedly infringing products and induces its customers to use them Compl. ¶56

Willful Infringement

• Willful infringement is not alleged by the plaintiff. However, Vertiv requests that the case be declared "exceptional" and seeks attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, alleging that Valtrus is pursuing "unfounded and false claims" Compl. ¶¶2, 135

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

• A central evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Do the accused Vertiv products, which are alleged to operate on temperature-based feedback, perform the distinct, non-temperature-based functions required by the patent claims? Specifically, this involves determining if they "sens[e] a pressure... in the plenum" as required by the ’284 Patent or execute the specific "vary removal, then vary supply" sequence of the ’683 Patent.
• A core issue for the ’682 patent will be one of definitional scope and system mapping: Can the term "redistributes the cooling fluid," which the patent specification links to the physical redirection of air via vents, be construed broadly enough to read on a system that activates a second, entirely separate cooling circuit using a different fluid (refrigerant) to supplement a primary circuit (glycol-water)?
• Finally, a key procedural question underlying the entire dispute is one of litigation strategy: Did Valtrus's pattern of suing customers and procuring settlements prior to merits decisions create the "actual controversy" necessary for Vertiv's declaratory judgment action, and could this same conduct support Vertiv's later request for an exceptional case finding?