DCT

3:25-cv-00631

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Bank Of New York Mellon Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00631, N.D. Tex., 03/15/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because Defendant maintains "numerous regular and established places of business in this District," including a wealth management office in Dallas, and employs technical and non-technical personnel within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s financial services infrastructure, which utilizes distributed computing platforms, infringes five patents related to distributed application management, parallel programming, and customized cluster hosting.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue involve methods for managing and executing large-scale software applications across distributed computer systems, which are foundational to modern cloud computing and enterprise-level financial service platforms.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of all patents-in-suit via notice letters. For U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844, knowledge is alleged as of May 14, 2024, with the notice specifically identifying Defendant's Docker-related products. For the remaining four patents, knowledge is alleged as of March 14, 2025.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-05-21 Earliest Priority Date (’080 Patent)
2004-12-30 Earliest Priority Date (’282 and ’844 Patents)
2007-10-30 Earliest Priority Date (’841 and ’584 Patents)
2010-05-04 Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 7,712,080)
2010-05-18 Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 7,721,282)
2010-10-26 Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 7,822,841)
2012-12-11 Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844)
2013-01-08 Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 8,352,584)
2024-05-14 Alleged Notice of Infringement (’844 Patent)
2025-03-14 Alleged Notice of Infringement (All other Patents-in-Suit)
2025-03-15 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,721,282 - "Block-Level I/O Subsystem For Distributed Application Environment Management"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,721,282, "Block-Level I/O Subsystem For Distributed Application Environment Management," issued May 18, 2010. (Compl. ¶25).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the inefficiency and cumbersomeness of deploying and updating software (a "boot image") across large clusters of computers. Pre-creating an image for each server wastes disk space, while creating images "on the fly" by copying a master image results in slow boot times. (’282 Patent, col. 1:39-57).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "branching store file system" where a common, read-only "root image" (e.g., a base operating system) is shared by all computers ("compute nodes") in a cluster. Changes or additions unique to each node are stored separately in a corresponding "leaf image." A "union block device" (UBD) acts as a low-level driver that logically merges the common root image with the unique leaf image, presenting a complete, functional application environment to the compute node without requiring a full copy of the root image. (’282 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-7).
  • Technical Importance: This block-level, copy-on-write approach was designed to significantly reduce the time, storage, and network bandwidth needed to provision and manage large-scale server farms. (’282 Patent, col. 2:40-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified "example claims." (Compl. ¶36). Independent claims 1 and 15 are representative.
  • Claim 1 (system) requires:
    • A compute node.
    • A first storage unit for a "root image."
    • A second storage unit for a "leaf image" (containing new data and changes).
    • A "union block device" that interfaces between the storage units and the compute node, creating the application environment by "merging" the blocks of the root and leaf images.
    • The union block device, upon a write request for a sector, creates a "persistent mapping" for that sector.
  • Claim 15 (method) requires the steps of storing the root and leaf images, merging their blocks to create the application environment, delivering it to the compute node, and, upon a write request, creating a persistent mapping for the relevant sector and writing it to the second storage unit.

U.S. Patent No. 7,712,080 - "Systems and Methods for Parallel Distributed Programming"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,712,080, "Systems and Methods for Parallel Distributed Programming," issued May 4, 2010. (Compl. ¶27).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies drawbacks in conventional parallel programming. The "message passing" model is efficient but complex and can obscure the original algorithm's logic. The "distributed shared memory" (DSM) model is easier to program but often suffers from performance bottlenecks caused by large data transfers between machines. (’080 Patent, col. 1:30-65).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a "navigational programming" model using "self-migrating threads," which are akin to mobile agents. A thread executes on one processor, and if it needs to access a large dataset residing on another processor's memory, the thread itself can "migrate" or "hop" to that processor to continue its computation locally. This avoids moving the large dataset across the network and is designed to combine the performance of message passing with the programming simplicity of DSM. (’080 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:12-27).
  • Technical Importance: This model offers a paradigm for developing distributed applications that is intended to be both scalable and easier to maintain by preserving the code's original structure while moving computation to the data. (’080 Patent, col. 4:1-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified "example claims." (Compl. ¶49). Independent claims 1 and 9 are representative.
  • Claim 1 (method) requires:
    • Establishing a "distributed shared variable" (a single logical variable physically spread across multiple memories).
    • Developing a "distributed sequential computing program" to access it.
    • "Transforming" this program into a "distributed parallel computing program" by "spawning at least one child distributed sequential computing program" when an "intermediate condition" occurs.
    • The intermediate condition involves a result from the parent program needed by the child program to continue its computation.
  • Claim 9 (system) recites a system with a memory area and processor configured to perform the method of claim 1.

U.S. Patent No. 7,822,841 - "Method and System for Hosting Multiple, Customized Computing Clusters"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,822,841, "Method and System for Hosting Multiple, Customized Computing Clusters," issued October 26, 2010. (Compl. ¶29).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the cost and complexity that prevent many organizations from owning and operating their own High-Performance Computing (HPC) clusters. (’841 Patent, col. 1:36-44). The invention provides a system and method for a third-party to host multiple, customized computing clusters for different remote clients, managing configuration, access control, and monitoring on their behalf. (’841 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Unspecified "example claims" are asserted. (Compl. ¶62). Independent claims 1 (system) and 6 (method) are representative.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that BNY Mellon's provision of financial services, which rely on its internally managed and customized distributed computing infrastructure, infringes the patent. (Compl. ¶¶ 62-64).

U.S. Patent No. 8,352,584 - "Systems for Hosting Customized Computing Clusters"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,352,584, "Systems for Hosting Customized Computing Clusters," issued January 8, 2013. (Compl. ¶31).
  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the ’841 patent, this invention also describes a system for hosting customized computing clusters. It further details the use of network gateways to isolate traffic between different client clusters, ensuring security and performance, while allowing a centralized system to monitor all hosted clusters. (’584 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:40-50).
  • Asserted Claims: Unspecified "example claims" are asserted. (Compl. ¶75). Independent claims 1 and 10 (both system claims) are representative.
  • Accused Features: The complaint targets BNY Mellon's use of managed, isolated computing clusters within its broader financial technology infrastructure. (Compl. ¶¶ 75-77).

U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844 - "Root Image Caching and Indexing for Block-level Distributed Application Management"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844, "Root Image Caching and Indexing for Block-level Distributed Application Management," issued December 11, 2012. (Compl. ¶33).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent builds upon the root/leaf image system of the ’282 patent by addressing further inefficiencies. It recognizes that in a large cluster, multiple nodes will redundantly access the same common blocks (e.g., drivers, libraries) from the root image and will redundantly perform file system indexing. (’844 Patent, col. 2:1-14). The invention proposes caching frequently accessed root image blocks and allowing one node to perform indexing on the root image and share the results with other nodes. (’844 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Unspecified "example claims" are asserted. (Compl. ¶88). Independent claims 1 (system), 7 (method), 14 (system), and 19 (method) are representative.
  • Accused Features: The complaint specifically alleges that BNY Mellon's "Docker-related products" infringe, targeting the use of containerization technology that relies on layered, shared base images. (Compl. ¶¶ 92-94).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as BNY Mellon's "Accused Systems and Services," which are the financial services and underlying technologies that the company makes, uses, and offers. (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that BNY Mellon's services for "creating, administering, managing, transacting, distributing, and optimizing" client assets are enabled by an infringing backend technology infrastructure. (Compl. ¶7). This infrastructure allegedly utilizes distributed computing platforms including, but not limited to, "Kubernetes, Docker, Kafka, Spark, and Hadoop." (Compl. ¶9). The complaint provides a screenshot from Defendant's website illustrating its service offerings, including Wealth Management, Private Banking, Global Family Office, and Trusts & Estate Planning Services. (Compl. p. 5).
  • The complaint positions these systems as central to BNY Mellon's business, enabling the financial products and services it offers to its customers. (Compl. ¶9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates by reference external claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 7, 8, 9, 10, 12) that were not filed as part of the public document. (Compl. ¶¶ 44, 57, 70, 83, 101). As these exhibits are not available for analysis, this section summarizes the infringement theory based on the complaint's narrative allegations and identifies potential points of contention.

U.S. Patent No. 7,721,282 Infringement Allegations

Narrative Theory

The complaint makes general allegations that BNY Mellon's Accused Systems and Services directly and indirectly infringe the ’282 patent. (Compl. ¶¶ 36-43). The technological connection is not detailed in the prose but is implied through the identification of the accused distributed systems (Compl. ¶9) and the patent's subject matter of managing distributed application environments.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether modern containerization platforms (e.g., Docker) and orchestration systems (e.g., Kubernetes), which use layered, copy-on-write filesystems, fall within the scope of the patent's claimed "union block device" that merges a "root image" and a "leaf image." The parties may dispute whether these modern systems operate at the "block-level" as described in the patent specification or at a higher file-system level.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence will be presented to show that the components of BNY Mellon's infrastructure perform the specific function of creating a "persistent mapping for sector X" upon a write request, as required by the independent claims?

U.S. Patent No. 7,712,080 Infringement Allegations

Narrative Theory

The complaint asserts that BNY Mellon's Accused Systems and Services, which utilize parallel distributed programming, infringe the ’080 patent. (Compl. ¶¶ 49-56). The narrative implies that frameworks like Spark and Hadoop, which distribute computational tasks across a cluster, practice the claimed invention. (Compl. ¶9).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether the claimed "self-migrating thread" can be construed to read on the behavior of tasks scheduled by distributed data-processing frameworks like Apache Spark. The defense may argue the term is limited to the "mobile agent" embodiment with an explicit "hop()" command described in the specification, while the plaintiff may argue for a broader interpretation covering any system where the locus of computation moves to the data.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused systems perform the claimed step of "transforming" a "sequential computing program" into a "parallel" one by "spawning" a "child" program based on an "intermediate condition"?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

U.S. Patent No. 7,721,282

The Term

"union block device" (from claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term is the central component of the claimed system. Its construction will likely determine whether the patent can cover modern virtualization and containerization technologies. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope dictates whether the patent is limited to a specific type of low-level driver described in the 2004-era specification or can be read more broadly to encompass functionally similar but architecturally different technologies like Docker's overlay filesystem drivers.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification functionally describes the component as a "filter" that "merges the changes recorded on the leaf images with the root image and delivers the result to the appropriate compute node." (’282 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also characterizes it as a "low-level driver" that operates "below the file system" and is "concerned merely with the blocks of data themselves, rather than files they form," which could be used to argue against infringement by systems operating at the file level. (’282 Patent, col. 4:47-52).

U.S. Patent No. 7,712,080

The Term

"self-migrating thread" (from claim 2)

Context and Importance

The infringement analysis for this patent hinges on the meaning of this term. Its definition is critical to determining if the patent's claims read on the operation of modern distributed processing frameworks (e.g., Spark, Hadoop). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will decide if it is limited to the explicit "mobile agent" paradigm discussed in the patent or if it can encompass the implicit task-scheduling and data-locality mechanisms of the accused systems.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the concept functionally, where a thread "may suspend its computations, migrate, or move, to the other processor... and then resume its computations." (’080 Patent, col. 3:24-27).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification frequently associates the invention with "mobile agents with strong mobility" and discloses an explicit "hop()" command for migration, suggesting a specific architectural implementation rather than a general principle of migrating computation. (’080 Patent, col. 3:17-18; col. 5:44).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that BNY Mellon induces infringement by providing its systems and services to customers, partners, and employees and instructing them on their use. (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 53, 66, 79, 97). It further alleges contributory infringement, stating that the accused technologies are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use and are especially adapted to infringe. (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 55, 68, 81, 99).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged for all five patents. For the ’282, ’080, ’841, and ’584 patents, the allegation is based on willful blindness and actual knowledge arising from a notice letter dated March 14, 2025. (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 52, 65, 78). The willfulness allegations for the ’844 patent are more specific, asserting actual knowledge since May 14, 2024, from a notice that allegedly "clearly identified the '844 Patent, identified example BNY Mellon products and features relating to Docker," and further alleging that BNY Mellon "deliberately and flagrantly copied" the invention. (Compl. ¶¶ 91-94).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms from patents with 2003-2007 priority dates, such as "union block device" and "self-migrating thread," be construed broadly enough to cover the architecturally different but functionally analogous mechanisms found in modern, widely adopted open-source platforms like Docker and Apache Spark?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what specific evidence will Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that BNY Mellon's particular implementation of these general-purpose platforms practices the specific, and in some cases granular, limitations of the asserted claims, such as the "block-level" operations of the ’282 patent family and the explicit "spawning" and "migration" steps of the ’080 patent?
  • The dispute over willfulness will likely be a critical front, especially concerning the ’844 patent. The complaint's allegations of early, specific notice tying the patent to Docker technology, combined with claims of "deliberate copying," raise the stakes for the defendant and may become a focal point of discovery and trial strategy.