DCT
4:18-cv-00806
Akoloutheo LLC v. Commvault Systems Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Akoloutheo, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Commvault Systems, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: RWBurns & Co., PLLC
- Case Identification: [Akoloutheo, LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/akoloutheo-llc) v. [Commvault Systems, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/commvault-systems-inc), 4:18-cv-00806, E.D. Tex., 11/09/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's alleged regular and established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas, specifically a sales office in Plano, Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s enterprise data management and backup products infringe a patent related to a generalized method for processing transactions between disparate information services and applications.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns a framework for managing interactions in a networked environment, allowing different software services and applications to transact without being explicitly custom-integrated, a key challenge in service-oriented architectures and cloud computing.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-04-19 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,426,730 |
| 2008-09-16 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,426,730 |
| 2018-11-09 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,426,730 - "Method and System for Generalized and Adaptive Transaction Processing Between Uniform Information Services and Applications"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7426730 (“Method and System for Generalized and Adaptive Transaction Processing Between Uniform Information Services and Applications”), issued September 16, 2008.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the complexity and inefficiency of integrating disparate information sources in a networked environment, such as combining driving directions with real-time traffic data (’730 Patent, col. 2:1-5). It notes that custom software integrations are limited and that a more generalized, automated framework is needed to manage the "ever-increasing complexities of configuration management and point-by-point integration" as systems grow (’730 Patent, col. 3:9-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "Transaction Processing Function" (TPF) that serves as a universal intermediary between "Resource Service Consumers" (RSCs) and "Resource Service Providers" (RSPs) (’730 Patent, Fig. 2). The TPF processes a "transaction definition" (TD), which is a standardized description of a requested interaction, without requiring explicit references to particular services (’730 Patent, col. 5:11-18). By analyzing the TD and the "Transaction Situation Context" (TSC), the TPF can dynamically identify, bind to, and execute operations with the appropriate services to fulfill the request (’730 Patent, col. 5:18-24, 30-40).
- Technical Importance: This architectural approach sought to simplify the large-scale integration of web services by abstracting the transaction logic away from the individual service providers and consumers, enabling more flexible and scalable systems (’730 Patent, col. 2:51-56).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (system), 15 (system), and 17 (method) (’730 Patent, col. 30:8 - col. 32:65; Compl. ¶39).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a networked computer system comprising:
- A resource transaction processing module.
- A plurality of remotely located resource providers.
- A resource information registry for storing information about the resources provided.
- Wherein the processing module responds to a transaction request by: constructing a transaction situation context; dynamically selecting a resource based on information in the registry; determining operations to perform on the resource; obtaining the resource; and processing it to generate a result.
- Independent Claim 15 recites a networked computer system for requesting an output resource, comprising: a resource registry; a transaction request entry module; a transaction situation context module; a resource transaction processing module for selecting an input resource; and a transaction processing agent that translates the request.
- Independent Claim 17 recites a computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining a transaction request; constructing a transaction situation context; analyzing the request to dynamically create input resources, determine operations, and obtain the resources; and executing the operations to generate an output resource.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and does not limit its assertions to the identified claims (’730 Patent, col. 7:42).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are collectively referred to as "Commvault Systems," which include "Commvault Software" (specifically, Complete Backup & Recovery, Hyperscale, Orchestrate, and Activate software systems) and "Commvault Network Devices" (specifically, HyperScale and Remote Office Appliances) (Compl. ¶¶ 11-14).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused products form "unified Commvault network access/management systems" that perform centralized monitoring and management of networked resources (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 18). A central feature is the "CV Search Engine," which is "powered by Apache SOLR" and provides functionality to index data across various repositories, search content and metadata, and use faceted search to find relevant documents (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 21). A bulleted list excerpted from Defendant’s materials describes the CV Search Engine's ability to "index data and allow search and eDiscovery across repositories" (Compl. p. 5). The complaint characterizes the accused products as enterprise-class data management solutions that "consolidates all the roles performed by discrete servers in the traditional data protection architecture into a single software defined stack" (Compl. p. 4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’730 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a networked computer system having a plurality of computer servers for providing a resultant resource according to a transaction request... | A Commvault System comprises Commvault Software installed on a networked computer system having a plurality of computer servers. | ¶28 | col. 10:51-54 |
| a resource transaction processing module; | A Commvault System processes resource transactions entered through the user interface. | ¶30 | col. 4:47-51 |
| a plurality of resource providers, each resource provider being remotely located to the resource transaction processing module and communicatively coupled to the resource transaction processing module via a computer network, and wherein each resource provider provides a resource available for use by the resource transaction processing module; | A Commvault System comprises a plurality of Network Resources, remotely located with respect to the computer system, which are communicatively coupled to the Commvault Software via a computer network. Each Network Resource provides one or more resources available for use by a Commvault System. | ¶¶ 31, 32 | col. 4:19-21 |
| a resource information registry communicatively coupled to the resource transaction processing module for storing information about the resources provided by the plurality of resource providers... | A Commvault System comprises a resource information registry for storing information about the Network Resources, with the registry storing information for each available resource. The complaint identifies the indexing by the CV Search Engine as evidence of this registry. | ¶¶ 20, 33 | col. 5:4-8 |
| wherein, in response to receiving a transaction request, the resource transaction processing module: constructs a transaction situation context... | A Commvault System generates contextual elements for the requested transaction that provide additional information for dynamically selecting and processing data. | ¶35 | col. 4:56-62 |
| dynamically selects at least one resource to process, in conjunction with the transaction situation context, in order to satisfy the transaction request according to resource information stored in the resource information registry; | A Commvault System dynamically selects at least one Network Resource to process in conjunction with the requested transaction according to information stored in the resource information registry. | ¶36 | col. 8:58-65 |
| determines one or more discrete operations to perform on the at least one selected resource to satisfy the transaction request; | A Commvault System determines one or more operations to perform on the Network Resource to obtain a result satisfying the requested transaction, such as retrieving data types. | ¶37 | col. 30:19-22 |
| obtains the at least one selected resource from the resource provider providing that resource; and | A Commvault System obtains a desired result from the selected Network Resource. | ¶38 | col. 30:23-24 |
| processes the at least one selected resource according to the one or more discrete operations to generate a resultant resource. | A Commvault System processes the result from the selected Network Resource to generate a desired output to the user interface. | ¶38 | col. 30:25-27 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The case may raise the question of whether Commvault’s system, which is specialized for data backup, recovery, and eDiscovery, falls within the scope of the patent’s claims for a "generalized" transaction processing system. The patent’s examples involve integrating disparate services like maps and traffic data, which suggests a different context than enterprise data management.
- Technical Questions: A technical dispute may arise over whether the "CV Search Engine" and its underlying architecture perform the specific functions of the claimed "resource transaction processing module." What evidence does the complaint provide that a user search query constitutes a "transaction request" that is then processed through the specific sequence of constructing a "transaction situation context" and determining "discrete operations" as required by the claims? The complaint makes these connections largely at a high level of abstraction (Compl. ¶¶ 30-38).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "resource transaction processing module"
Context and Importance
This term is the central processing engine of the claimed invention. The infringement case hinges on whether the core software of the "Commvault Systems" can be characterized as this module. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint maps it to Commvault's overall system functionality rather than a specific, discrete component that mirrors the patent's "Transaction Processing Function (TPF)."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines the corresponding "TPF" broadly as "a software component that manages transactions between one or more information services" (’730 Patent, col. 4:47-51), which could arguably encompass a wide range of software.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures show the TPF performing a specific, multi-step process involving parsing a "Transaction Definition," constructing a "Transaction Situation Context," atomizing operations, and linking services (’730 Patent, Fig. 12). This detailed process could support a narrower construction that requires more than just receiving a request and returning a result.
The Term: "resource information registry"
Context and Importance
Plaintiff alleges that the index maintained by the "CV Search Engine" is this "registry" (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 33). The viability of this allegation depends on how this term is construed.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires a "registry... for storing information about the resources." One might argue that a search index, which stores metadata and location information about data "resources," fits this general description.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's specification describes the analogous "Uniform Specification Repository (USR)" as storing "classifications" and "specifications" for services and resources according to a "Uniform Specification Model (USM)" (’730 Patent, col. 5:1-8, col. 8:46-52). This suggests the registry is not merely an index of data content but a structured repository of service and resource definitions and taxonomies, which may be functionally different from an Apache SOLR index.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement. However, it alleges that Defendant "require[s] end users to operate Commvault Systems in a manner prescribed and controlled by Commvault" and "exercises control and/or direction over the performance of every action performed on or by a Commvault System" (Compl. ¶43). These allegations may be intended to support a theory of direct infringement by control or, alternatively, to lay a factual predicate for induced infringement.
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that infringement will be willful and deliberate from the date of service of the complaint, forming a basis for post-suit willfulness (Prayer for Relief ¶d). No facts are alleged to support pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent's claims, which describe a "generalized" framework for brokering transactions between disparate "information services," be construed to cover the accused "Commvault Systems," which are specialized for the particular application of enterprise data backup, indexing, and eDiscovery?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence: does the accused "CV Search Engine" perform the specific, multi-step logical process of the claimed "resource transaction processing module"—including parsing a "transaction definition" and constructing a "transaction situation context"—or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation between a data indexing platform and the patent's claimed transaction-brokering architecture?