DCT
6:18-cv-00321
Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Kempe
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Intellectual Ventures II LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Kemper Corporation; Trinity Universal Insurance Company d/b/a Kemper Preferred; Unitrin County Mutual Insurance Company d/b/a Kemper Direct and Kemper Specialty; Charter Indemnity Company d/b/a Kemper Specialty (collectively "Kemper") (Delaware/Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Nix Patterson & Roach, L.L.P.
- Case Identification: 6:18-cv-00321, E.D. Tex., 02/23/2016
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants maintain continuous and systematic business contacts within the district, including offering and selling insurance services, collecting premiums, and processing claims.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's internal computer storage systems and external customer-facing web portals infringe two patents related to high-performance multiprocessor architecture and personalized online content delivery, respectively.
- Technical Context: The technologies relate to high-performance computer architecture for enterprise data systems and methods for personalizing user experiences on the web, both foundational to modern corporate IT infrastructure and online customer service platforms.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the alleged infringement through at least five communications between July 2014 and February 2015, which received no response. This alleged pre-suit knowledge may form the basis for a willfulness claim. Subsequent to the complaint's filing, both patents-in-suit were subject to post-grant proceedings. Notably, the asserted claim of the ’442 Patent was canceled in an Inter Partes Review (IPR), and the asserted claims of the ’177 Patent were disclaimed in separate IPRs, events which fundamentally impact the prospective viability of this litigation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1997-12-07 | U.S. Patent No. 6,516,442 Priority Date |
| 2000-05-11 | U.S. Patent No. 7,516,177 Priority Date |
| 2003-02-04 | U.S. Patent No. 6,516,442 Issued |
| 2009-04-07 | U.S. Patent No. 7,516,177 Issued |
| 2014-07-01 | Alleged Pre-Suit Notice Period Begins |
| 2015-02-28 | Alleged Pre-Suit Notice Period Ends |
| 2016-02-23 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,516,442 - Channel Interface and Protocols for Cache Coherency In a Scalable Symmetric Multiprocessor System (Issued Feb. 4, 2003)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with traditional symmetric multiprocessor (SMP) computer systems where all processors access memory over a single shared bus. As more processors are added, this shared bus becomes a performance bottleneck, limiting the system's scalability and throughput. (’442 Patent, col. 1:36-43).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an SMP system architecture that replaces the single shared bus with a "switched fabric" data path. This architecture uses multiple high-speed, point-to-point channels to connect processors, I/O subsystems, and memory, allowing for multiple, concurrent data transfers and thereby increasing bandwidth. (’442 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:50-55). The system is centered on a Flow-Control Unit (FCU) that implements this switched-fabric architecture. (’442 Patent, FIG. 2; col. 2:47-52).
- Technical Importance: This switch-based approach to multiprocessor interconnects was a key development for moving beyond the scalability limits of shared-bus architectures, enabling more powerful and complex server and data storage systems. (Compl. ¶1).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1.
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A switch fabric configured to switch packets containing data;
- A plurality of channels configured to transfer the packets;
- A plurality of switch interfaces configured to exchange packets with the switch fabric, exchange packets over the channels, and perform error correction of the data in the packets;
- A plurality of microprocessor interfaces configured to exchange data with microprocessors, exchange packets with the switch interfaces over the channels, and perform error correction of the data in the packets; and
- A memory interface configured to exchange data with a memory device, exchange packets with the switch interfaces over the channels, and perform error correction of the data in the packets.
U.S. Patent No. 7,516,177 - Apparatus for Distributing Content Objects to a Personalized Access Point of a User of a Network-Based Environment and Method (Issued Apr. 7, 2009)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of information overload on the internet, which it characterizes as "sipping information from a fire hose," making it difficult for users to find desired information and track it for later use. (’177 Patent, col. 2:41-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system and method for users to aggregate content objects into a personalized or "centralized access point" (e.g., a personal web page). Users can discover and select these content objects from various "distributed information access points" (e.g., banners, tokens on products) across a network. (’177 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:30-44). The system is designed to identify user demand and facilitate the distribution of targeted content. (’177 Patent, FIG. 1).
- Technical Importance: The technology relates to methods of content personalization and aggregation, which are central to creating tailored user experiences in e-commerce and online services. (Compl. ¶26).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 and Claim 16, with the detailed allegations mapping to method Claim 16.
- The essential elements of independent Claim 16 are:
- Providing a database on a server accessible over a communication link, storing information about content and users;
- Assembling content into one or more distributed information access points communicating with the database;
- Presenting one or more distributed information access points to potential users at a visually perceptible location;
- Selecting content from a range of distributed information access points for addition to a centralized access point of a particular user; and
- Accessing the centralized access point of the user from a distributed information access point to gain access to the selected content.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The complaint accuses two categories of instrumentalities: (1) Defendant's internal "shared-memory multiprocessor computer systems," specifically identifying "EMC VMAX and VNX Storage Arrays" (Compl. ¶¶30-31), and (2) Defendant's external, user-facing "portals and web services," including the "customer/agency WebSphere Portal" and other portals accessible via specified URLs (Compl. ¶¶38-39).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The accused storage arrays are alleged to be used in Defendant's business to "utilize switches to route packets across the internal network and exchange those packets over various network channels while providing error correction functionality." (Compl. ¶31). These systems support Defendant's shared services and business functions. (Compl. ¶24).
- The accused web portals are alleged to provide Defendant's agents and customers with "personalized access to policy, claim, and other information through a single access point." (Compl. ¶40). The complaint alleges these online services are designed to streamline information requests and reduce personnel costs. (Compl. ¶26).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’442 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a switch fabric configured to switch packets containing data; | The accused storage arrays allegedly utilize switches to route packets across an internal network. | ¶31 | col. 2:50-52 |
| a plurality of channels configured to transfer the packets; | The accused instrumentality allegedly utilizes a plurality of channels configured to transfer packets. | ¶32 | col. 2:56-61 |
| a plurality of switch interfaces configured to exchange the packets with the switch fabric, exchange the packets over the channels, and perform error correction of the data...; | The accused instrumentality allegedly utilizes a plurality of switch interfaces to exchange packets with the switch fabric, exchange them over channels, and perform error correction. | ¶33 | col. 6:35-51 |
| a plurality of microprocessor interfaces configured to exchange the data with a plurality of microprocessors, exchange the packets with the switch interfaces over the channels, and perform error correction of the data...; | The accused instrumentality allegedly utilizes a plurality of microprocessor interfaces to exchange data with microprocessors, exchange packets with switch interfaces, and perform error correction. | ¶34 | col. 3:3-6 |
| a memory interface configured to exchange the data with a memory device, exchange the packets with the switch interfaces over the channels, and perform error correction of the data... | The accused instrumentality allegedly utilizes a memory interface to exchange data with a memory device, exchange packets with switch interfaces, and perform error correction. | ¶35 | col. 4:59-65 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: The complaint's allegations concerning the internal architecture of the accused EMC storage arrays are made "on information and belief." A central evidentiary question will be what proof Plaintiff can offer that these third-party products practice each specific limitation, particularly the "perform error correction" function recited in three separate elements of the claim.
- Scope Question: A dispute may arise over whether the data integrity mechanisms in the accused products perform "error correction" as required by the claim, which may imply a specific technical function (e.g., Forward Error Correction), versus merely performing "error detection" (e.g., via checksums or parity bits).
’177 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 16) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a database on a server accessible over a communication link capable of storing information about: a) content, and b) users; | The accused portals allegedly provide a database on a server accessible over a communication link that stores information about content and users. | ¶42 | col. 2:50-53 |
| assembling content into one or more distributed information access points which are in communication with the database...; | The accused portals allegedly assemble content into one or more distributed information access points in communication with the database. | ¶43 | col. 2:39-44 |
| presenting one or more distributed information access points to one or more potential users at a visually perceptible location; | The accused portals allegedly present one or more distributed information access points to users at a visually perceptible location. | ¶44 | col. 13:13-16 |
| selecting content from one or more of an entire range of distributed information access points for addition to a centralized access point of the particular user; | The accused portals allegedly select content from a range of distributed information access points for addition to a centralized access point of a user. | ¶45 | col. 14:55-58 |
| accessing the centralized access point of the particular user from one or more distributed information access points to gain access to the selected content. | The accused portals allegedly access the centralized access point of the user from a distributed information access point to gain access to selected content. | ¶46 | col. 14:59-62 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: A primary point of contention may be whether a standard insurance web portal—where users log in to view their own pre-existing policy and claim information—constitutes "selecting content from...distributed information access points for addition to a centralized access point." This raises the question of whether routine account access equates to the dynamic content aggregation and selection process described in the patent.
- Technical Question: The complaint does not specify how the accused portals perform the step of "assembling content into one or more distributed information access points." The technical evidence for how Defendant's portals perform this specific claimed function, beyond simply serving web pages, may be a key point of dispute.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
’442 Patent
- The Term: "perform error correction"
- Context and Importance: This exact phrase appears in three of the five main limitations of asserted Claim 1. The infringement case hinges on showing that the accused EMC storage arrays perform this specific function at the switch, microprocessor, and memory interfaces. Practitioners may focus on this term because its technical meaning could distinguish the claimed invention from systems that merely detect errors without actively correcting them.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract states a goal is to "reliably transfer data...in the face of errors," which could be argued to encompass any mechanism that ensures data integrity. (’442 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly refers to "ECC" (Error Correction Code) in the context of data transfer protocols. (’442 Patent, col. 17:61; col. 26:36-40). This suggests that "error correction" may be intended to mean a specific class of algorithms that can reconstruct corrupted data, not just detect it.
’177 Patent
- The Term: "distributed information access points"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to Claim 16 and defines the source from which users "select" content. The infringement theory depends on Kemper's various web portals qualifying as such "points." Its construction will determine whether the claim reads on a conventional website structure or requires a more specialized network of content sources.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes "distributed information access points" as comprising "viewer perceptible screen displays on client computers or wireless web appliances" and including "a rich media banner ad" or "co-branding information" on a third-party site. (’177 Patent, col. 7:1-11). This could support reading the term on various forms of web-based content presentation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The summary of the invention describes these points in the context of "a primary Web site, and by way of predetermined but dynamic groups of aggregated content objects which are made available via banners and/or tokens." (’177 Patent, col. 2:40-44). This language could be used to argue that the term requires more than just a single, conventional website portal.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement, but the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin future contributory and inducing infringement. (Compl. ¶57.e, f). The body of the complaint does not set forth specific factual allegations regarding Defendant's knowledge or intent to cause infringement by third parties.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit based on at least five outreach attempts by Plaintiff via "phone, email, and/or parcel service" between July 2014 and February 2015, to which Defendant allegedly did not respond. (Compl. ¶52). This alleged notice forms the basis of the claim for willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Given the post-filing cancellation and disclaimer of the asserted claims in IPR proceedings, the primary question for this case is its continued viability. Should the action proceed on other, unasserted claims, the dispute would likely center on the following issues:
- A core issue for the ’442 Patent will be one of functional specificity: Does the accused EMC storage array's standard data integrity mechanism perform the specific "error correction" function recited multiple times in the patent's claims, or does it perform a technically distinct function, such as mere "error detection," that falls outside the claim scope?
- A key question for the ’177 Patent will be one of definitional scope: Can the patent's concept of a user "selecting content" from "distributed information access points" for a "personalized access point" be construed to cover a customer simply logging into a standard insurance portal to view their own pre-existing policy information, or does the claim require a more active, user-directed process of content aggregation from varied sources?