DCT

3:25-cv-00632

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00632, N.D. Tex., 05/08/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains numerous regular and established places of business in the district, including physical agency offices, and employs personnel who work and reside in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s financial services and underlying IT infrastructure, which allegedly use technologies like Docker and Spark, infringe three patents related to distributed computing, parallel programming, and application environment management.
  • Technical Context: The patents address foundational challenges in managing and executing software applications across large-scale, distributed computer systems, a core technology for enterprise IT in sectors like insurance and finance.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of all three patents-in-suit via notice letters. A letter dated July 1, 2024, allegedly notified Nationwide of the ’**844** Patent and its relation to Docker technology. A subsequent letter dated March 14, 2025, allegedly provided notice of the ’**282** and ’**080** patents. These allegations form the basis for claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-05-21 U.S. Patent No. **7,712,080** Priority Date
2004-12-30 U.S. Patent No. **7,721,282** Priority Date
2004-12-30 U.S. Patent No. **8,332,844** Priority Date
2010-05-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,712,080 Issued
2010-05-18 U.S. Patent No. 7,721,282 Issued
2012-12-11 U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844 Issued
2024-07-01 Alleged Notice of ’844 Patent Sent to Defendant
2025-03-14 Alleged Notice of ’282 and ’080 Patents Sent to Defendant
2025-05-08 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 (Issued May 18, 2010)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the inefficiency and complexity of deploying and managing software, particularly operating systems, across large clusters of computers. Methods like creating unique boot images for each machine are slow and waste storage, while updating them is cumbersome (’282 Patent, col. 1:39-58).
  • 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 stored centrally. Each individual computer ("compute node") stores its unique modifications and new data in a separate "leaf image." A specialized "union block device" (UBD), operating as a low-level driver, merges the common root image with a node's specific leaf image "on the fly," presenting a complete and unique application environment to that node without duplicating the entire root image (’282 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:17-33).
  • Technical Importance: This block-level, copy-on-write approach was designed to enable rapid deployment, updating, and management of consistent software environments across many machines by minimizing data duplication and centralizing the base image (’282 Patent, col. 2:48-60).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶47, 55).
  • Independent Claim 1 is a system claim comprising these essential elements:
    • A compute node.
    • A first storage unit for storing blocks of a root image.
    • A second storage unit for storing a leaf image with new data and changes to the root image.
    • A union block device for interfacing between the storage units and the compute node, which creates the application environment by merging the root and leaf images.
    • The union block device is further defined as a low-level driver that interfaces with the file system and, upon a write request, creates a persistent mapping for the modified data sector.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶47).

U.S. Patent No. 7,712,080 - Systems and Methods for Parallel Distributed Programming (Issued May 4, 2010)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background identifies a core trade-off in distributed programming: "message passing" is efficient but programmatically complex and alters algorithmic structure, while "distributed shared memory" is simpler to program but often inefficient due to large, remote data transfers (’080 Patent, col. 1:20-65).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes "navigational programming" using "self-migrating threads." Instead of moving large amounts of data to a fixed computational unit, the thread of computation itself can "hop" or migrate between processors to operate on data where it resides locally. This is intended to follow the "pivot-computes" principle, where computation takes place at the node holding the largest amount of relevant data, preserving code simplicity while achieving performance (’080 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:15-28; col. 4:1-9).
  • Technical Importance: This model aimed to simplify the creation of efficient, scalable, and maintainable parallel programs by allowing developers to write code that looks sequential while the underlying system manages the migration of computation for performance (’080 Patent, col. 4:60-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶60, 68).
  • Independent Claim 1 is a method claim comprising these essential elements:
    • Establishing a "distributed shared variable" that is physically spread across multiple memories.
    • Developing a "distributed sequential computing program" to access that variable.
    • Transforming that program into a "distributed parallel computing program" by spawning a "child" program when an "intermediate condition" occurs.
    • The parent and child programs run concurrently to perform parallel operations, with the child program requiring an "intermediate result" from the parent to continue its computation.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶60).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844 - Root Image Caching and Indexing for Block-Level Distributed Application Management (Issued Dec. 11, 2012)

  • Technology Synopsis: Building on the root/leaf image architecture of the ’282 patent, this invention addresses redundant operations in a cluster. It proposes caching frequently accessed blocks from the common root image to accelerate access for all nodes. It also discloses a method where one compute node can index the root image and share the results, saving other nodes from having to perform the same computationally expensive task (’844 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-14).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint alleges infringement of at least Claim 1, a system claim for providing data to a plurality of compute nodes (Compl. ¶¶73, 86).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Nationwide's "Docker-related products" and underlying infrastructure for managing its application environments infringe this patent (Compl. ¶¶77-78).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the "Accused Systems and Services" as Nationwide's financial and insurance products and the technologies that enable them (Compl. ¶8). It specifically names the use of "Docker, Kafka, Spark, and Hadoop" as part of the infringing systems (Compl. ¶9, 39).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these technologies form the backend infrastructure for Nationwide's core business operations, including services provided online and through agents (Compl. ¶9). This infrastructure is allegedly used to manage insurance policies, create quotes, and handle claims (Compl. ¶¶16-19). The complaint includes a screenshot of an online portal, the "Nationwide Express" system, used by agents to build quotes for various insurance products, illustrating one interface to the accused services (Compl. ¶18, at 9).
  • Nationwide provides these tools to its agents via an "Agent Center" portal, which gives them access to policy management, quoting tools, and other resources (Compl. ¶¶16-17). A screenshot in the complaint shows the portal's landing page, which advertises features like "Documents and forms" and "Policy management information" (Compl. ¶17, at 8).
  • The complaint positions Nationwide as a major entity in the U.S. insurance and financial services markets, suggesting the accused systems are of significant commercial importance (Compl. ¶7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

7,721,282 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a compute node comprising a computer system Nationwide's computer systems, including servers, that host its financial and insurance applications. ¶¶9, 47 col. 3:4-6
a first storage unit for storing blocks of a root image of the compute node Storage on Nationwide’s systems that allegedly holds a base or "root" software image (e.g., a standard operating system or a base Docker image) used across multiple applications. ¶¶47, 77 col. 3:11-14
a second storage unit for storing a leaf image... comprising new data blocks and changes to the blocks of the root image Storage where unique, application-specific changes and data are written, such as the writable layer of a container that is distinct from the base image. ¶¶47, 77 col. 3:18-24
a union block device for interfacing... wherein the union block device creates the application environment by merging the blocks of the root image... with the blocks of the leaf image The functionality within Nationwide's systems (allegedly including Docker) that combines the base image with the separate change layer to present a single, cohesive environment to the running application. ¶¶9, 47, 77 col. 2:24-30
the union block device comprises a low-level driver for interfacing between the first and second storage units and the file system of the compute node The complaint’s theory implies that the accused software (e.g., containerization technology) performs the function of a low-level driver that manages block-level I/O for the application. ¶¶47, 55 col. 3:47-51
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the claimed "union block device," defined in the patent as a "low-level driver" operating "below the file system" (’282 Patent, col. 3:47-51), can be construed to read on the functionality of modern containerization platforms like Docker. Such platforms typically use storage drivers (e.g., OverlayFS) that operate at a higher level of abstraction than a traditional block device driver, which may create a scope mismatch.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the use of technologies like Docker, but what evidence demonstrates that Nationwide’s specific implementation uses a root/leaf storage architecture that maps to the elements of Claim 1? The functionality of merging layers is conceptually similar, but the infringement analysis will depend on the precise technical operation of Nationwide's deployed systems.

7,712,080 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
establishing at least one distributed shared variable... physically distributed across multiple memories Nationwide's distributed data platforms (e.g., Hadoop Distributed File System or Kafka topics) that manage data as a single logical entity while storing it physically across a cluster of machines. ¶¶9, 39, 60 col. 3:32-40
developing at least one distributed sequential computing program to access the at least one distributed shared variable Nationwide’s development of applications, such as Spark jobs, that are written at a high level to process the distributed data. ¶¶9, 29, 60 col. 3:50-58
transforming the at least one distributed sequential computing program into at least one distributed parallel computing program by spawning at least one child distributed sequential computing program... when at least one intermediate condition occurs Distributed processing frameworks like Apache Spark are alleged to transform a single program into multiple parallel tasks ("children") that execute across the cluster to process different data partitions. ¶¶9, 39, 60 col. 5:56-65
wherein the... parallel computing program concurrently uses the... sequential computing program and the... spawned child... program to perform parallel processing The alleged operation of Nationwide's systems where a master process and spawned worker tasks run concurrently across the cluster to complete a computational job. ¶¶9, 60, 64 col. 5:58-62
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Does the claim limitation "transforming... by spawning at least one child... program when at least one intermediate condition occurs" accurately describe the operation of frameworks like Spark? These frameworks often use a declarative API and a centralized scheduler to create a directed acyclic graph (DAG) of tasks, which may be a fundamentally different "transformation" process than the patent’s model of a running program spawning a child based on a specific runtime condition.
    • Technical Questions: The ’080 patent’s disclosure is heavily based on the concept of a "self-migrating thread" that physically "hops" between nodes (’080 Patent, col. 3:25-31). The accused systems, like Spark and Hadoop, more typically employ a task-shipping model where a scheduler sends code to be executed where data resides. Whether this model is functionally equivalent to the patent's "navigational programming" will be a key point of technical dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • From the ’282 Patent:

    • The Term: "union block device"
    • Context and Importance: This term is the central component of the system claimed in the ’282 patent. The infringement case hinges on whether this term can be interpreted to cover modern containerization software like Docker, which is explicitly mentioned in the complaint’s allegations for the related ’844 patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely determine whether technology created long after the patent's priority date falls within its scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Abstract describes the component functionally as a device "for interfacing between the compute node and the first and second storage units to distribute the application environment." This language could support an argument that any component performing this logical merging function qualifies.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself states the device "comprises a low-level driver." The specification reinforces this, stating "UBDs 130a-n are effectively low-level drivers" that "operate below the file system" and are "operating system, independent" (’282 Patent, col. 3:47-51). This suggests a specific implementation deep in the I/O stack, potentially excluding higher-level software.

  • From the ’080 Patent:

    • The Term: "transforming the... program into at least one distributed parallel computing program by spawning at least one child"
    • Context and Importance: This phrase from Claim 1 describes the core method of achieving parallelism. Its interpretation is critical for determining if the operational model of modern distributed frameworks like Spark or Hadoop, which rely on schedulers and task graphs, infringes the claimed method.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes transforming a "DSC program to a DPC program" (’080 Patent, FIGS. 3a-3b, 4a-4b, 5a-5b), suggesting a general transformation from a single locus of control to multiple. An argument could be made that any system that takes a single user program and executes it as multiple parallel tasks is performing this "transformation."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of this transformation, such as a thread cloning itself and having the clone "hop" to another node after a specific computational part (R) is finished (’080 Patent, col. 8:56-65). This points to a specific, stateful, and dynamic spawning mechanism rather than the more static, pre-planned task decomposition common in schedulers like Spark's.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement for all three patents. The basis for these claims is that Nationwide provides its systems, services, documentation (e.g., product manuals), and training to its employees, agents, partners, and vendors, thereby encouraging and enabling them to use the accused technologies in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶51-54, 64-67, 82-85).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents based on pre-suit notice letters. The allegations for the ’844 Patent are particularly detailed, claiming Nationwide had knowledge since July 1, 2024, was notified of the patent's relevance to "Docker-related products," and "deliberately and flagrantly copied and/or incorporated" the invention without conducting a good faith investigation (Compl. ¶¶77-80).

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

This dispute will likely center on the extent to which patent claims drafted in the context of early-2000s distributed computing architectures can read on the more abstract, higher-level distributed systems frameworks that are now industry standard. The central questions for the court will be:

  • A core issue will be one of architectural scope: Can the term "union block device," described in the ’282 patent as a "low-level driver," be construed to cover higher-level software constructs like the storage drivers used in modern container platforms such as Docker?
  • A second key issue will be one of operational mechanism: Do the accused distributed frameworks (e.g., Spark, Hadoop), which typically use schedulers to dispatch tasks across a cluster, perform the claimed method of "transforming" a program by having a running process "spawn a child" in the specific, state-dependent manner disclosed in the ’080 patent?
  • Finally, a primary evidentiary question will be one of implementation detail: Beyond the general allegation that Nationwide uses "Docker, Kafka, Spark, and Hadoop," what evidence will emerge in discovery to show that the specific configurations deployed by Nationwide actually practice the detailed technical limitations recited in the asserted claims?