DCT

3:24-cv-01152

Vertiv Corp v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:24-cv-01152, N.D. Tex., 05/14/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Vertiv asserts that venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the dispute occurred in the district, Defendant Valtrus is subject to personal jurisdiction there, and Valtrus is a foreign company. The complaint also notes that Valtrus has previously filed patent litigation in the Northern District of Texas against other parties.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its data center cooling, control, and sensor products do not infringe five patents owned by Defendant related to data center environmental control.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue relates to methods and systems for managing atmospheric conditions, primarily cooling and airflow, within data centers, which is a critical factor for the operational reliability and energy efficiency of modern IT infrastructure.
  • Key Procedural History: This action follows what the complaint characterizes as an "ongoing campaign" by Valtrus, which has filed patent infringement lawsuits against several of Vertiv's customers, including Digital Realty Trust and CyrusOne, alleging that their use of Vertiv products infringes the patents-in-suit. Valtrus, which acquired the patents from Hewlett Packard Enterprise, has also sent notice letters to at least ten data center companies asserting infringement. The complaint notes that three of the five patents-in-suit have expired.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-04-17 ’277 Patent Priority Date
2002-08-02 ’287 Patent Priority Date
2002-11-26 ’179 Patent Priority Date
2004-04-06 ’277 Patent Issue Date
2004-05-28 ’870 Patent Priority Date
2004-06-29 ’490 Patent Priority Date
2005-02-15 ’287 Patent Issue Date
2005-03-01 ’179 Patent Issue Date
2006-04-18 ’870 Patent Issue Date
2008-03-04 ’490 Patent Issue Date
2024-05-14 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,718,277, "Atmospheric Control Within a Building" (Issued Apr. 6, 2004)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional data center cooling systems as inefficient because they typically operate at or near full capacity on a continuous basis, cooling all electronic components regardless of their specific, localized heat loads, which results in unnecessarily high operating expenses (’277 Patent, col. 2:20-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system that senses atmospheric parameters (e.g., temperature) at numerous discrete locations within a building. This data is used to generate an "empirical atmospheric map," which is then compared to a "template atmospheric map" (e.g., an ideal state derived from a model) to identify "pattern differentials" such as hot spots. Based on these identified differentials, the system determines and executes corrective action by varying the quantity, quality, and distribution of the conditioned fluid to target specific areas (’277 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:1-15).
  • Technical Importance: This approach introduced a more dynamic, data-driven, and granular control methodology for data center cooling, enabling a shift from inefficient, room-level cooling to a more targeted, location-specific strategy (’277 Patent, col. 7:41-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claims 1, 12, and 22 (Compl. ¶78-80).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 (a method claim) include:
    • supplying a conditioned fluid inside said building;
    • sensing at least one atmospheric parameter in a plurality of locations inside said building;
    • generating an empirical atmospheric map from the results of said sensing step using software for processing input from said sensing step and for producing output in the form of said empirical atmospheric map;
    • comparing said empirical atmospheric map to a template atmospheric map; and
    • identifying pattern differentials between said empirical and template atmospheric maps.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert non-infringement of dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,854,287, "Cooling System" (Issued Feb. 15, 2005)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inefficiency of conventional data center cooling systems that are designed for worst-case scenarios and operate continuously at or near maximum compressor power, even when the actual heat load is reduced, leading to excessive operating costs (’287 Patent, col. 2:10-29).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a cooling system comprising multiple heat exchanger units (HEUs) supplied with cooling fluid from a central air conditioning unit. The core of the solution is the ability to control air delivery in response to locally sensed temperatures by "individually manipulating a mass flow rate of the cooling fluid supplied to each of the plurality of heat exchanger units." This allows for cooling to be tailored to the specific needs of different racks or zones (’287 Patent, Abstract; col. 13:28-41).
  • Technical Importance: This technology allows for more granular, demand-based cooling control at the individual heat-exchanger level, moving beyond simple on/off or system-wide adjustments to enable optimized energy use based on localized thermal loads (’287 Patent, col. 8:56-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claims 1, 10, 14, 16, and 20 (Compl. ¶88-92).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 (a method claim) include:
    • providing a plurality of heat exchanger units configured to receive air from said room and to deliver air to said room;
    • supplying said plurality of heat exchanger units with cooling fluid from an air conditioning unit;
    • cooling said received air through heat exchange with the cooling fluid;
    • sensing temperatures at one or more locations in said room;
    • controlling at least one of the temperature of said cooling fluid and said air delivery by said plurality of heat exchanger units...in response to said sensed temperatures;
    • wherein the step of controlling said air delivery...comprises individually manipulating a mass flow rate of the cooling fluid supplied to each of the plurality of heat exchanger units.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert non-infringement of dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,862,179, "Partition for Varying the Supply of Cooling Fluid" (Issued Mar. 1, 2005)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses inefficient cooling in data centers by proposing a system that uses a "controllable partition" located within a plenum (’179 Patent, col. 1:45-2:15). This partition is manipulated to vary the supply of cooling fluid to a specific "zone" of server racks in response to sensed temperature changes within that zone, enabling more localized and demand-responsive cooling control (’179 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 16, and 27 are subjects of the declaratory judgment action (Compl. ¶100-102).
  • Accused Features: Plaintiff Vertiv asserts that its Liebert cooling units and Liebert iCOM control systems do not infringe the ’179 Patent (Compl. ¶97, ¶100).

U.S. Patent No. 7,031,870, "Data Center Evaluation Using Air Re-Circulation Index" (Issued Apr. 18, 2006)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent aims to improve data center thermal management, which is often based on inefficient layouts and non-optimized airflow (’870 Patent, col. 1:44-2:38). It discloses a method for evaluating data center components by calculating an "index of air re-circulation" based on detected inlet, outlet, and supplied air temperatures. Components are then evaluated by analyzing how this index changes in response to varied airflow settings, providing a metric for thermal efficiency (’870 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 13, 22, 32, and 37 are subjects of the declaratory judgment action (Compl. ¶110-114).
  • Accused Features: Plaintiff Vertiv asserts that its Liebert cooling units and Liebert iCOM control systems do not infringe the ’870 Patent (Compl. ¶107, ¶110).

U.S. Patent No. 7,339,490, "Modular Sensor Assembly" (Issued Mar. 4, 2008)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the high cost and cumbersome installation associated with deploying large numbers of individual temperature sensors throughout a data center (’490 Patent, col. 1:53-2:18). The invention is a modular sensor assembly featuring an "elongate flexible body" designed to attach to a computer rack. This body houses multiple "addressable sensors" interconnected by a "common connector wire," greatly simplifying the wiring and installation process for comprehensive thermal monitoring (’490 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 11, and 28 are subjects of the declaratory judgment action (Compl. ¶122-124).
  • Accused Features: Plaintiff Vertiv asserts that its Liebert cooling units and Liebert modular sensors do not infringe the ’490 Patent (Compl. ¶119, ¶122).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The products for which Plaintiff Vertiv seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement are its Liebert-brand cooling units, the Liebert iCOM and iCOM-S control systems, and Liebert modular sensors (Compl. ¶71, ¶75, ¶85).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the accused products as providing data center cooling, control, and sensor functionalities (Compl. ¶2). The Liebert iCOM and iCOM-S systems are identified as an "Intelligent Communication and Monitoring system" used to control the Liebert cooling units (Compl. ¶19). The complaint does not provide detailed technical descriptions of the products' operation; rather, it focuses on asserting that their functionality does not meet specific limitations of the asserted patent claims (Compl. ¶78, ¶88). The complaint states that Defendant Valtrus's infringement allegations rely on technical information from Vertiv's product brochures, user manuals, and websites (Compl. ¶18).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain or attach claim charts alleging infringement. Instead, it references claim charts from separate lawsuits filed against Vertiv's customers, which are not provided as part of the pleading (Compl. ¶18). Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The analysis below summarizes Vertiv's narrative theories of non-infringement as presented in the complaint.

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,718,277 Non-Infringement Theory
    • Vertiv alleges that its products, including the Liebert iCOM and iCOM-S control systems, do not infringe the ’277 Patent because they do not practice the claimed steps of "generating an empirical atmospheric map," "comparing said empirical atmospheric map to a template atmospheric map," and "identifying pattern differential between said empirical and template atmospheric maps" as required by independent claims 1, 12, and 22 (Compl. ¶78-80). This suggests Vertiv's position is that its control systems may use sensor data to modulate cooling but do not create or compare "maps" in the manner claimed.
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,854,287 Non-Infringement Theory
    • Vertiv alleges that its Liebert cooling units and control systems do not infringe the ’287 Patent because they do not practice the method step of "individually manipulating a mass flow rate of the cooling fluid supplied to each of the plurality of heat exchanger units" as required by independent claim 1 and recited in other independent claims (Compl. ¶88). This indicates Vertiv may argue its systems control cooling units in aggregate, or control a parameter other than the individual mass flow rate of cooling fluid to each unit.
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: For the ’277 Patent, a central dispute may be the proper construction of "empirical atmospheric map." The question is whether the data aggregation and processing performed by the accused iCOM systems falls within the scope of this term, or if the term requires a more specific form of spatial data representation and comparison that the accused products do not perform.
    • Technical Questions: For the ’287 Patent, the dispute may turn on the specific mechanism of control. The key question is what evidence exists that the accused systems perform "individual" manipulation of "mass flow rate" to "each" heat exchanger. The analysis will likely focus on whether the systems' control architecture provides for such granular, per-unit flow rate manipulation or employs a different control strategy.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term from ’277 Patent: "empirical atmospheric map"
    • Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of Vertiv's non-infringement argument for the ’277 Patent. The outcome of the dispute may depend on whether the data processing performed by the accused iCOM control system is construed as generating a "map."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term is not limited to a graphical representation, describing "software for generating maps of atmospheric conditions" that processes "thousands of input data points" and outputs "map-like information" (’277 Patent, col. 5:39-43).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes a "map" in more concrete terms, as being "composed of temperature contours that define various isothermal regions," and being used to "triangulate the location of the actual hot spot," which may support a narrower construction requiring a spatial model beyond simple data aggregation (’277 Patent, col. 5:44-56).
  • Term from ’287 Patent: "individually manipulating a mass flow rate of the cooling fluid supplied to each of the plurality of heat exchanger units"
    • Context and Importance: This phrase is central to Vertiv's non-infringement defense for the ’287 Patent. Whether the accused systems infringe may depend on whether their method of control meets the "individually," "mass flow rate," and "to each" limitations.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "individually manipulating" encompasses any control scheme that has a differential effect on individual units, even if achieved through a centralized component like a variable speed pump serving multiple units.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification and claims appear to support a more direct, one-to-one control mechanism. Independent claim 10, for example, recites a "plurality of pumps" where the controller is "operable to control said plurality of pumps to thereby individually control the mass flow rate of cooling fluid delivered into each of the respective heat exchanger units" (’287 Patent, col. 15:35-42). This suggests that the invention contemplates distinct control over the flow to each unit.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: Vertiv seeks a declaration that its products do not infringe directly or indirectly, and that it has not contributed to or induced infringement (Compl. ¶78, ¶128). The complaint notes that the infringement allegations made by Valtrus against Vertiv's customers "implicitly contain allegations of direct and indirect infringement...against Vertiv" (Compl. ¶65-66). However, the complaint does not present specific facts alleged by Valtrus to support knowledge or intent for indirect infringement.

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

  • Definitional Scope: A core issue will be one of definitional scope regarding the ’277 Patent: can the term "empirical atmospheric map," as described in the patent's specification, be construed to cover the specific data processing and control logic utilized by the accused Vertiv iCOM systems, or do those systems operate on a fundamentally different technical principle that falls outside the claim language?
  • Functional Operation: A key technical question for the ’287 Patent will be one of functional operation: do the accused Liebert cooling systems perform the specific claimed function of "individually manipulating a mass flow rate of the cooling fluid supplied to each" heat exchanger, or is control achieved through an alternative mechanism, such as global temperature adjustments or grouped control, that is technically distinct from the patented method?
  • Procedural Dynamics: As a declaratory judgment action filed by a supplier in a different district from where infringement suits are pending against its customers, a significant aspect of the case will be the jurisdictional and procedural interplay between this forum and the parallel litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.