DCT

5:23-cv-00126

OptiMorphix Inc v. Cisco Systems Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:23-cv-00126, E.D. Tex., 11/02/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Cisco is registered to do business in Texas, has regular and established places of business in Allen and Richardson, Texas, employs full-time personnel in the district, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s networking infrastructure, SD-WAN, and video conferencing products infringe nine patents related to network traffic management, data transport acceleration, and adaptive bitrate streaming.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to technologies for optimizing the delivery of data and media over networks, a field of significant importance given the growth of video streaming and the challenges of managing traffic on congested mobile and wireline networks.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states the patents-in-suit were developed at Bytemobile, Inc., a company focused on mobile internet optimization, and later Citrix Systems, Inc., following its acquisition of Bytemobile in 2012. The complaint also asserts that Defendant Cisco has cited the patents-in-suit or their families as relevant prior art in numerous of its own issued patents, a fact Plaintiff may use to argue notice and willfulness.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-01-01 Bytemobile, Inc. was founded
2001-04-12 Earliest Priority Date for ’273 Patent
2001-05-11 Earliest Priority Date for ’418 Patent
2001-05-16 Earliest Priority Date for ’314 Patent
2001-05-22 Earliest Priority Date for ’871 Patent
2006-04-18 U.S. Patent No. 7,031,314 Issues
2006-08-29 U.S. Patent No. 7,099,273 Issues
2007-07-10 Earliest Priority Date for ’285, ’904, ’105, ’141, and ’664 Patents
2008-10-28 U.S. Patent No. 7,444,418 Issues
2009-09-08 U.S. Patent No. 7,586,871 Issues
2011-07-26 U.S. Patent No. 7,987,285 Issues
2011-08-02 U.S. Patent No. 7,991,904 Issues
2012-07-01 Citrix Systems, Inc. acquires Bytemobile, Inc.
2012-07-24 U.S. Patent No. 8,230,105 Issues
2014-07-01 U.S. Patent No. 8,769,141 Issues
2015-11-17 U.S. Patent No. 9,191,664 Issues
2023-11-02 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,031,314: “Systems and Methods for Providing Differentiated Services Within a Network Communication System” (issued Apr. 18, 2006)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that existing Internet-based network infrastructures were not originally designed to support the "wide variety of application-specific and subscriber-specific services" that were becoming common, creating performance issues ('314 Patent, col. 1:37-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "service module" incorporated within the network that intercepts data packets between a client and server ('314 Patent, Abstract). If the connection matches certain criteria for a service (e.g., email compression, web acceleration), the module breaks the end-to-end connection by terminating it and opening two new, separate connections: one with the client and one with the server, allowing the service application to process the data in between ('314 Patent, col. 2:40-49).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture allows network operators to transparently insert value-added services into data streams without requiring modification to client or server applications ('314 Patent, col. 3:23-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 27 ('Compl. ¶106).
  • Claim 27 is a system claim comprising:
    • A processor and a memory unit with instructions.
    • Instructions to classify a connection between a client and server to determine if it matches a predetermined service criteria.
    • Instructions to form a first connection between the client and the service module and a second connection between the service module and the server in response to a match.
    • Instructions to use the first and second connections to redirect at least a portion of data to the service application associated with the criteria.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,099,273: “Data Transport Acceleration and Management Within a Network Communication System” (issued Aug. 29, 2006)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses inefficient data transport in networks with variable conditions, such as wireless networks ('273 Patent, col. 3:28-33). It identifies shortcomings in conventional Transport Control Protocol (TCP), which assumes symmetric channels and reacts poorly to the "bursty nature of data transmission" and random packet loss common in such environments, leading to poor performance for applications like audio or video streaming ('273 Patent, col. 1:38-41, col. 2:1-6).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method for managing data transfer using a "transmit timer" whose period is based on network measurements like "smoothed round-trip time" and "smoothed congestion window" ('273 Patent, col. 3:45-50). This timer-based approach, rather than a purely acknowledgement-based one, is intended to better adapt to actual network capacity and avoid inefficient data bursts ('273 Patent, col. 4:47-52).
  • Technical Importance: This method provides a more stable and efficient data transport mechanism for congested or asymmetric networks, improving resource utilization and performance for delay-sensitive applications ('273 Patent, col. 3:31-33).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 ('Compl. ¶135).
  • Claim 1 is a method claim comprising:
    • Establishing a connection between a sender and receiver.
    • Measuring round-trip times of data packets.
    • Determining a congestion window parameter.
    • Transmitting additional data packets in response to expiration of a transmit timer, where the timer's period is based on the round-trip time measurements and the congestion window parameter.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,444,418: “Transcoding Multimedia Information Within a Network Communication System” (issued Oct. 28, 2008)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of transmitting multimedia that is encoded at a higher rate than a network channel can support, a common issue in bandwidth-constrained wireless networks (Compl. ¶39). The solution involves intercepting the multimedia data, estimating the available transmission rate of the receiver-side connection, and transcoding the media (e.g., altering its bitrate) to match the available rate before forwarding it (Compl. ¶¶38, 151-153).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 23 (Compl. ¶162).
  • Accused Features: The Cisco Webex and Meeting Server products are accused of intercepting multimedia information, estimating available transmission rates, and transcoding the data to conform to those rates (Compl. ¶¶145, 147, 150, 152).

U.S. Patent No. 7,586,871: “Platform and Method for Providing Data Services in a Communication Network” (issued Sep. 8, 2009)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent is directed to efficiently providing data services like content filtering in a network (Compl. ¶45). The invention describes a communication node that detects an event associated with incoming data, determines whether to suspend that data for servicing based on the event, processes the suspended data, and allows the return data to pass through without processing (Compl. ¶44).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶184).
  • Accused Features: The Cisco Firepower and ASA series security products are accused of detecting events, suspending data communications for service based on those events, processing the suspended data, and allowing return data to pass through unprocessed (Compl. ¶¶171, 173, 175, 177-178).

U.S. Patent No. 7,987,285: “Adaptive Bitrate Management for Streaming Media Over Packet Networks” (issued Jul. 26, 2011)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of delivering bandwidth-intensive content over capacity-limited links like wireless networks (Compl. ¶52). The solution involves a method of adaptive bitrate management that includes receiving a receiver report, estimating network conditions, determining an optimal session bitrate, and providing media data to the terminal based on that optimal bitrate (Compl. ¶51).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 9 (Compl. ¶207).
  • Accused Features: Cisco Webex and related products are accused of using adaptive bitrate algorithms to obtain an optimal session bitrate, allocating that bitrate among audio and video streams, and compressing the content accordingly (Compl. ¶¶194, 197-200).

U.S. Patent No. 7,991,904: “Adaptive Bitrate Management for Streaming Media Over Packet Networks” (issued Aug. 2, 2011)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent is directed to solving the problem of rate control for media streaming over packet networks, particularly in wireless environments, where prior art methods were limited (Compl. ¶¶60-61). The invention describes a framework for adjusting the bitrate of streaming media sessions according to instantaneous network capacity, using feedback from TCP acknowledgements to guide a rate adaptation algorithm (Compl. ¶¶59, 219, 224).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 11 (Compl. ¶232).
  • Accused Features: Cisco Webex and related products are accused of using TCP acknowledgements to obtain metrics like Round-Trip Time, feeding those metrics into a rate adaptation algorithm to determine an optimal session bitrate, and allocating that bitrate between audio and video streams (Compl. ¶¶217, 219, 224-225).

U.S. Patent No. 8,230,105: “Adaptive Bitrate Management for Streaming Media Over Packet Networks” (issued Jul. 24, 2012)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses delivering consistent and optimized streaming media sessions over wireless networks, where challenges include buffer overflow and playback stall (Compl. ¶¶67-68). The patented method involves receiving a receiver report, estimating network conditions, determining an optimal session bitrate, and allocating that bitrate between audio and video based on a selected metric (e.g., user preference, privileging one data type) (Compl. ¶¶66, 247).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 16 (Compl. ¶258).
  • Accused Features: Cisco Webex and related products are accused of obtaining an optimal session bitrate based on network conditions and allocating it between audio and video media data based on a selected metric, such as prioritizing one media type over another (Compl. ¶¶242, 245, 247, 249).

U.S. Patent No. 8,769,141: “Adaptive Bitrate Management for Streaming Media Over Packet Networks” (issued Jul. 1, 2014)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for adaptive bitrate management for pseudo-streaming media over packet networks (Compl. ¶75). The method involves providing pseudo-streaming data, receiving a TCP acknowledgment, estimating network conditions based on that acknowledgment, determining an optimal session bitrate, and then providing subsequent media data based on that optimal bitrate (Compl. ¶75).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 20 (Compl. ¶283).
  • Accused Features: Cisco Webex and related products are accused of using an adaptive bitrate algorithm (MPEG-DASH) to determine an optimal session bitrate and partitioning that bitrate between audio and video components (Compl. ¶¶268, 273, 275).

U.S. Patent No. 9,191,664: “Adaptive Bitrate Management for Streaming Media Over Packet Networks” (issued Nov. 17, 2015)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent aims to solve the problem of delivering multimedia content over capacity-limited, shared wireless links by quickly responding to changes in network conditions (Compl. ¶81). It teaches an adaptive bitrate manager that monitors feedback to estimate network conditions and encodes media according to optimal bitrates determined from those estimates (Compl. ¶83).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 9 (Compl. ¶310).
  • Accused Features: Cisco Webex and related products are accused of receiving media data, receiving an optimal session bitrate, allocating that bitrate between audio and video to produce optimal audio and video bitrates, and encoding the media data using those optimal bitrates (Compl. ¶¶293, 296, 298, 300, 302, 304).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Cisco Application Centric Infrastructure (ACI), including various Data Center Networking software tiers (accused of infringing the ’314 Patent) (Compl. ¶89).
  • Cisco SD-WAN products, including IOS XE Catalyst SD-WAN, Viptela OS, and related routers and platforms (accused of infringing the ’273 Patent) (Compl. ¶116).
  • Cisco Collaboration products, including Cisco Meeting Server, Webex App, Webex Meetings, and various Webex Desk, Room, and Board hardware series (accused of infringing the ’418, ’285, ’904, ’105, ’141, and ’664 Patents) (Compl. ¶¶145, 194, 217, 242, 268, 293).
  • Cisco Security products, including the Firepower 9300, 4100, and 2100 Series, and Cisco ASA 5500-X with FirePOWER (accused of infringing the ’871 Patent) (Compl. ¶171).

Functionality and Market Context

  • ACI: The complaint alleges that ACI products provide differentiated services by classifying network connections against predetermined criteria and redirecting data flow to specific service applications (Compl. ¶¶95, 101-102).
  • SD-WAN: These products are alleged to perform data transport acceleration by establishing TCP connections, measuring packet round-trip times (RTT), and using those measurements to perform timestamping, calculate congestion windows, and pace data transmission (Compl. ¶¶118, 121, 122, 128-129).
  • Collaboration Products: This suite of products is accused of performing adaptive bitrate streaming for video conferencing. The alleged functionality includes intercepting and transcoding multimedia streams to match available network bandwidth, using feedback like TCP acknowledgements or receiver reports to estimate network conditions, determining an optimal session bitrate, and allocating that bitrate between audio and video streams before encoding and transmission (Compl. ¶¶147-152, 197-200, 224-225, 245-247, 273-275, 298-300).
  • Security Products: These products are alleged to function as network nodes that process data communications by detecting events in packet flows, suspending communications for services like content filtering, and allowing return communications to pass through without processing (Compl. ¶¶173, 175, 177, 178).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'314 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 27) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
classifying a connection that has been requested between the client and the server to determine whether the connection matches a predetermined service criteria... Cisco ACI products classify a requested connection to determine if it matches predefined service criteria by analyzing attributes like source, destination, and service type. ¶95 col. 2:32-40
forming a first connection between the client and the service module and a second connection between the service module and a server in response to the connection matching the predetermined service criteria... In response to a match, the ACI products form two connections: a first between the client and a service module, and a second between the service module and a server. ¶98 col. 2:40-49
using the first connection and the second connection to redirect at least a portion of data communicated between the client and the server to the service application associated with the predetermined service criteria. The ACI products use the initial and secondary connections to redirect data communication to the appropriate service application based on the matched criteria. ¶101 col. 2:50-55

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the accused ACI products' method of redirecting traffic or "service chaining" meets the claim limitation of "forming a first connection... and a second connection" ('314 Patent, cl. 27). The defense may argue that its products create a logical redirection path without performing the specific connection termination and re-establishment described in the patent's specification ('314 Patent, col. 2:40-49).

'273 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
measuring round-trip times of data packets sent from the sender to the receiver... Cisco SD-WAN products measure the round-trip propagation time (RTprop) by tracking the minimum round-trip time (RTT) for the connection. ¶121 col. 3:45-48
determining a congestion window parameter that specifies a maximum number of unacknowledged data packets... The products calculate a congestion window parameter (cwnd) based on the estimated bottleneck bandwidth and RTT to limit the amount of unacknowledged data in transit. ¶¶127, 129-130 col. 3:48-50
transmitting additional data packets to the receiver in response to an expiration of a transmit timer... The products transmit additional data packets to the receiver in response to the expiration of a transmit timer. ¶131 col. 3:45-48
wherein the period of the transmit timer is based on the round-trip time measurements and the congestion window parameter. The complaint alleges the products perform round-trip time-based pacing, where the period of the transmit timer is based on RTT measurements and the congestion window. The complaint points to a diagram from a Google presentation on the BBR algorithm to allege that RTT is calculated by subtracting an original timestamp from an ACK receive time (Compl. p. 36). ¶¶124, 126, 131 col. 3:48-52

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement theory for the '273 patent relies heavily on allegations that Cisco's products implement the "BBR Congestion Control" algorithm (Compl. ¶¶124, 126). A primary point of contention will be factual: do the accused products actually practice BBR as described in the cited external documents, and does that algorithm meet every limitation of the claim? The analysis will likely require evidence of the accused products' source code and internal operation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For '314 Patent

  • The Term: "forming a first connection between the client and the service module, and a second connection between the service module and a server"
  • Context and Importance: The infringement case hinges on whether the accused ACI products' traffic management constitutes "forming" two distinct connections as claimed. Cisco may argue its products perform a more seamless redirection or pass-through that does not involve the specific "break and re-establish" process detailed in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the process functionally as breaking "the end-to-end connection between the client and the server to form two separate connections" ('314 Patent, col. 2:43-45), language that might support various technical implementations beyond a literal TCP-level teardown and setup.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 4 of the patent depicts a specific sequence of SYN, SYN+ACK, and ACK packets for both the client-side and server-side connections, which could be argued to define the claimed "forming" process as requiring discrete TCP handshake procedures for each of the two new connections ('314 Patent, Fig. 4).

For '273 Patent

  • The Term: "the period of the transmit timer is based on the round-trip time measurements and the congestion window parameter"
  • Context and Importance: Infringement depends on whether the accused products' pacing mechanism is driven by a timer period calculated from these specific inputs. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges that the accused products use "MinRTT" to perform pacing rate calculations (Compl. ¶126), and the dispute will turn on whether this specific implementation falls within the scope of the claim language.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the concept generally, stating the "period of the transmit timer may be based on smoothed round trip time and smoothed congestion window measurements to provide a better estimate of available bandwidth" ('273 Patent, col. 3:45-50). This could support a reading that covers any pacing timer derived from these general types of network metrics.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides a specific formula: "period of the timer may be determined by the ratio of the smoothed round trip time and the smoothed congestion window" ('273 Patent, col. 3:50-52). A defendant could argue this ratio-based calculation is a required limitation, potentially narrowing the claim scope to exclude other algorithms that might use these inputs in a different mathematical relationship.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The allegations are based on Cisco providing product documentation, user manuals, data sheets, and training materials that allegedly instruct and encourage customers to use the accused products in their infringing, ordinary, and customary manner (Compl. ¶¶107, 110, 136, 139).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Cisco's infringement was and continues to be willful. The basis for this allegation is pre-suit knowledge, founded on the assertion that numerous Cisco-owned patents cite the patents-in-suit or their family members as relevant prior art. The complaint provides specific dates for this alleged knowledge, such as "since at least February 16, 2010" for the '314 patent and "since at least February 2, 2010" for the '273 patent (Compl. ¶¶109, 138).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the traffic redirection and service insertion functionality of Cisco's ACI and security products meet the specific "break and re-establish" connection mechanism required by the claims of the '314 and '871 patents, or do the products operate in a technically distinct manner?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional implementation: do Cisco's SD-WAN and Webex products practice the specific timer-based data pacing and adaptive bitrate algorithms recited in the claims? This will likely require a technical deep-dive into whether the accused products implement algorithms like BBR and, if so, whether those algorithms map directly onto the claim limitations regarding how timer periods and bitrate allocations are calculated.
  • A significant legal question will be one of knowledge and intent: can Plaintiff establish that Cisco's citations to the patents-in-suit as prior art in its own patent prosecution activities are sufficient to prove pre-suit knowledge of the patents and their infringement for the purposes of establishing induced and willful infringement?