DCT
6:18-cv-00188
Realtime Data LLC v. IBM Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO (New York)
- Defendant: International Business Machines Corporation (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
- Case Identification: 6:18-cv-00188, E.D. Tex., 04/30/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant is registered to do business in Texas, has transacted business in the District, and maintains a regular and established place of business within the District.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s enterprise data storage, transfer, and management products infringe three patents related to systems and methods for data compression.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue is data compression, a fundamental process for increasing the efficiency of data storage and the speed of data transfer in modern computing systems.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff and Defendant met in or about 2000 to discuss Plaintiff's technologies. All three patents-in-suit have survived post-grant validity challenges at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 was subject to an Inter Partes Review (IPR) resulting in a certificate issued May 1, 2020. U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530 was subject to both an Inter Partes Reexamination, resulting in a certificate issued August 16, 2013, and an IPR, resulting in a certificate issued May 8, 2020. U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 was also subject to an IPR, with a certificate issued May 6, 2020.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-12-11 | ’728 Patent Priority Date |
| 1999-03-11 | ’530 and ’908 Patents Priority Date |
| c. 2000 | Plaintiff and Defendant meeting |
| 2008-08-19 | ’530 Patent Issued |
| 2015-06-09 | ’728 Patent Issued |
| 2015-08-25 | ’908 Patent Issued |
| 2018-04-30 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 - "Data compression systems and methods"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem that the effectiveness of lossless data compression techniques is highly dependent on the content of the data itself, making it difficult to select an optimal compression method for a given data block, particularly when its content type is not known beforehand (’728 Patent, col. 1:30-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that first analyzes a data block to identify intrinsic "parameters or attributes" of the data. Based on this analysis, the system selects one of two compression paths: if specific attributes are identified, it uses one or more "content dependent" encoders; if not, it uses a "single data compression encoder" as a default. This selection is based on the data's content, not on external metadata or a "descriptor" like a file extension (’728 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:4-21).
- Technical Importance: This adaptive, content-aware approach to compression allows for more efficient data reduction by selecting a more suitable algorithm dynamically, a key consideration in managing increasingly large and varied datasets.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶10).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A system for compressing data comprising a processor, one or more content dependent data compression encoders, and a single data compression encoder.
- The processor is configured to analyze data within a data block to identify one or more parameters or attributes, where this analysis excludes relying solely on a descriptor indicative of those parameters.
- The processor is configured to perform content dependent data compression if such parameters or attributes are identified.
- The processor is configured to perform data compression with the single data compression encoder if such parameters or attributes are not identified.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶26).
U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530 - "System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a critical performance bottleneck in computer systems where the data read/write rates of memory storage devices, such as magnetic disks, are significantly slower than the internal data transfer capabilities of the computer's bus architecture (’530 Patent, col. 1:20-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "data accelerator" positioned between the data source and the storage device. This accelerator receives a data stream, compresses it using different techniques for different data blocks within the stream, and stores the compressed data. The core concept is that the combined process of compressing and storing the smaller data block is faster than storing the original, larger data block, thereby increasing the effective storage bandwidth. The system also stores a "descriptor" with the compressed data to indicate which compression technique was used, enabling proper decompression later (’530 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a method to mitigate the I/O bottleneck between fast processing units and slower mass storage, a foundational challenge in computer architecture.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶34).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A system comprising a memory device and a data accelerator coupled to it.
- The data accelerator receives a data stream containing at least a first and second data block.
- The accelerator compresses the first block with a first compression technique and the second block with a second, different compression technique.
- The resulting compressed data stream is stored on the memory device.
- Crucially, this entire compression and storage process occurs faster than the data stream could have been stored on the same memory device in its original, uncompressed form.
- A first data descriptor, indicative of the first compression technique, is stored on the memory device and is used for decompression.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶50).
U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 - "System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, "System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval," issued August 25, 2015.
- Technology Synopsis: Belonging to the same family as the ’530 Patent, this patent also addresses the I/O bottleneck between fast processors and slower storage devices. The patented solution is a system with a "data accelerator" that compresses a first data block with a first technique and a second data block with a different, second technique, enabling the compressed data to be stored faster than the uncompressed data could be written to the memory device (’908 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶57).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶60).
- Accused Features: The accused functionality involves IBM systems that apply multiple, different compression techniques (such as deduplication and "Real-time Compression") to different data blocks to accelerate the overall data storage process (Compl. ¶¶ 68-70).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint names a wide range of IBM's enterprise products and services, including but not limited to IBM Aspera products, IBM DB2, Data Compression (zEDC) for z/OS, IBM SAN Volume Controller, IBM Storwize V7000, IBM FlashSystem V9000, the IBM System Storage TS7600 series (including those with ProtecTIER), IBM Tivoli Storage Manager, and IBM Spectrum Protect (Compl. ¶9, ¶31, ¶56).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that these products incorporate data compression and data deduplication technologies to manage and store large volumes of data efficiently. Products with ProtecTIER are alleged to perform "content-aware data deduplication" (Compl. ¶17). Storwize and FlashSystem products are alleged to feature "Real-time Compression" (Compl. ¶15). IBM Aspera products are described as enabling "high-speed data transfer" (Compl. ¶13). These products are positioned in the market as high-performance solutions for enterprise data storage, backup, and transfer.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
9,054,728 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a system for compressing data comprising; a processor; | The accused products are physical or virtual appliances that contain or must run on hardware containing a processor. | ¶20 | col. 2:4-5 |
| one or more content dependent data compression encoders; | The accused products allegedly perform data deduplication, which is identified as a "content dependent data compression encoder." Some products are specifically marketed as performing "content-aware data deduplication." | ¶17, ¶21 | col. 2:6-7 |
| and a single data compression encoder; | The accused products also allegedly perform "Real-time Compression," which is identified as a separate, single data compression encoder. | ¶22 | col. 2:7-8 |
| wherein the processor is configured: to analyze data within a data block to identify one or more parameters or attributes of the data wherein the analyzing of the data within the data block...excludes analyzing based solely on a descriptor that is indicative of the one or more parameters or attributes of the data within the data block; | The accused products allegedly analyze data blocks to determine if they are duplicative of previously stored data. This analysis is based on the content of the data, not on an external descriptor. | ¶23 | col. 2:9-15 |
| to perform content dependent data compression with the one or more content dependent data compression encoders if the one or more parameters or attributes of the data are identified; | If duplicative data (the alleged "parameters or attributes") is identified, the system performs content-dependent deduplication. | ¶24 | col. 2:15-18 |
| and to perform data compression with the single data compression encoder, if the one or more parameters or attributes of the data are not identified. | If the data is not identified as duplicative (i.e., the "parameters or attributes...are not identified"), the system performs data compression using its "Real-time Compression" features, which function as the single data compression encoder. | ¶25 | col. 2:18-21 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether "data deduplication" and "Real-time Compression," as implemented in IBM's products, meet the specific definitions of "content dependent data compression encoder" and "single data compression encoder" as those terms are used in the patent.
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory relies on a specific conditional logic: the system analyzes the data and chooses one of two distinct paths. A key technical question will be whether the accused products actually operate according to this conditional "if-then-else" structure, or if they employ a different, non-infringing workflow, such as applying multiple compression types serially or in parallel.
7,415,530 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a system comprising: a memory device; and a data accelerator, wherein said data accelerator is coupled to said memory device, | The accused physical and virtual appliances are alleged to contain a memory device and a processor that functions as a data accelerator. | ¶42 | col. 18:3-7 |
| a data stream is received by said data accelerator in received form, said data stream includes a first data block and a second data block, | The accused products allegedly receive incoming data streams for backup or storage, which comprise more than one data block. | ¶43, ¶44 | col. 18:8-10 |
| said data stream is compressed by said data accelerator to provide a compressed data stream by compressing said first data block with a first compression technique and said second data block with a second compression technique, said first and second compression techniques are different, | The products allegedly use two different techniques: deduplication (the first technique) and "compression" (the second technique). | ¶45, ¶46 | col. 18:11-16 |
| said compressed data stream is stored on said memory device, | After compression and/or deduplication, the resulting data is stored on a memory device within the accused system. | ¶47 | col. 18:17-18 |
| said compression and storage occurs faster than said data stream is able to be stored on said memory device in said received form, | The complaint cites IBM's descriptions of its products as providing "high-speed" and "maximum speeds" for data transfer to allege that the combined compression-and-storage process is faster than direct storage. | ¶48 | col. 18:19-22 |
| a first data descriptor is stored on said memory device indicative of said first compression technique, and said first descriptor is utilized to decompress the portion of said compressed data stream associated with said first data block. | A descriptor, such as a pointer to a deduplicated data block, is allegedly stored and later used to decompress or reconstruct the original data. | ¶49 | col. 18:23-28 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary evidentiary challenge will be proving the "faster than" limitation. The complaint relies on marketing statements about speed. The case may require detailed technical evidence to establish that the accused products' entire compress-then-store workflow for a given data block is actually faster than the baseline operation of simply storing that same uncompressed data block to the same memory device.
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute is whether a "pointer to a deduplicated data block," as alleged, constitutes a "first data descriptor...indicative of said first compression technique" as required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "content dependent data compression encoder" (’728 Patent)
Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the ’728 Patent’s two-path compression scheme. The infringement case hinges on whether IBM's "content-aware data deduplication" falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine if the primary accused functionality maps to the claims.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not limit the term to specific algorithms, suggesting it could cover any compression method that bases its operation on the substantive content of the data, which could include various forms of deduplication.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue the term should be limited to the types of content analysis implicitly described, potentially distinguishing them from the specific hash-based chunking common in modern deduplication systems.
The Term: "data accelerator" (’530 Patent)
Context and Importance: The nature of the "data accelerator" is critical. The dispute will likely concern whether this term requires dedicated hardware or can also read on a software process running on a general-purpose processor, as the complaint alleges for some of the accused products.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims a "system" and describes the accelerator in functional terms (e.g., "operatively coupled," "receives and processes"). Claim 1 does not specify a hardware structure.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The word "accelerator" itself often implies specialized hardware in the art. The block diagrams in the patent depict the "Data Storage Accelerator" as a distinct structural component (e.g., ’530 Patent, Fig. 1), which could support an argument for a structural rather than purely functional interpretation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents. Inducement is based on allegations that IBM, through user manuals, marketing, and product support, instructs and encourages customers to use the accused products in their normal, infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 40, 66). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused products are especially made for infringing use and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 41, 67).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that IBM has had knowledge of the patents and its infringement since "at least the filing of this Complaint or shortly thereafter" (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 33, 59). This forms a basis for alleging willful infringement based on post-suit conduct. The prayer for relief also requests a finding that this is an "exceptional case" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. p. 37, ¶e).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of performance verification: can Plaintiff produce technical evidence to prove that the accused products' combined "compress and store" operations are demonstrably faster than directly storing the same uncompressed data to the same memory device, as required by the '530 and '908 patents? This is a factual and evidentiary question that goes beyond the marketing claims cited in the complaint.
- A key question for the '728 patent will be one of operational logic: does the accused technology perform the specific, two-path conditional analysis claimed—first analyzing content, then selecting either a "content dependent" path or a "single encoder" path—or does it employ a different, non-infringing technical workflow?
- The case will also likely turn on definitional scope: can processes like "data deduplication" and "Real-time Compression" as implemented by IBM be construed to meet the claim limitations of "content dependent data compression encoder" and "single data compression encoder," respectively, within the context of the '728 patent, and does a software module on a general-purpose CPU constitute a "data accelerator" as described in the '530 and '908 patents?