Focus Global Solutions LLC v. Micro Focus LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Focus Global Solutions LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Micro Focus LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 4:23-cv-00866, TXSD, 03/08/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Southern District of Texas and has committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unnamed network management products infringe two patents related to systems and methods for configuring and managing heterogeneous network devices.
• Technical Context: The technology involves abstracting vendor-specific interfaces to allow unified, policy-driven management of diverse network equipment, a key challenge in enterprise and service-provider networks.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is the initiating document in this matter and does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-12-06	Priority Date for '162 Patent
2000-12-06	Priority Date for '170 Patent
2007-07-17	U.S. Patent No. 7,246,162 Issued
2007-07-24	U.S. Patent No. 7,249,170 Issued
2023-03-08	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,246,162 - System and method for configuring a network device

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the significant difficulty, technical skill, and manual effort required for network administrators to configure network devices, particularly when dealing with equipment from multiple different manufacturers, each with its own unique command structure ('162 Patent, col. 1:50-2:16). This complexity increases the chance of error and slows down network expansion ('162 Patent, col. 2:54-59).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that provides a single, global graphical user interface (GUI) to communicate with diverse network devices, abstracting away vendor-specific complexities ('162 Patent, Abstract). The system is driven by a "template library" which stores, for each device type or model, the necessary attribute fields and the specific format for communicating commands to that device ('162 Patent, col. 4:33-39). An administrator uses the global GUI to populate a template with data, and the system then translates this information into the device-specific command required by the target device ('162 Patent, col. 4:45-58).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to decouple network management from the specific identity of the underlying hardware, allowing administrators to manage a heterogeneous network through a unified interface without needing to learn the distinct command syntax for every device ('162 Patent, col. 12:15-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, referring only to the "Exemplary '162 Patent Claims" identified in a non-proffered exhibit (Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Receiving a message indicating a network event has occurred.
  • Comparing the network event with a collection of policies to determine a response.
  • Retrieving a "command-format template" for the network device, which indicates how to construct a device-specific command and includes an "attribute field."
  • Identifying attribute data corresponding to the attribute field based on the determined response.
  • Generating the device-specific command using the template and the identified attribute data.
  • Providing the generated command to the network device.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶12).

U.S. Patent No. 7,249,170 - System and method for configuration, management and monitoring of network resources

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the '162 patent, this patent addresses the lack of a "holistic approach to network administration," where managing devices from different vendors requires using multiple, unrelated, and often difficult-to-manage tools ('170 Patent, col. 2:64-3:10). This leads to substandard fault detection and cumbersome recovery processes ('170 Patent, col. 3:11-21).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "network manager unit" that sits between the administrator and the network devices, enabling a holistic view and management of the entire network ('170 Patent, Abstract). This unit relies on two key architectural components: a "central repository for all configuration information" and a "central posting location for all network events" (referred to as an "event bus") ('170 Patent, col. 3:48-52). The system can automatically respond to network events posted to the event bus by consulting predefined policies, retrieving a centrally-stored configuration record, and generating the necessary device-specific commands ('170 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 4:18-34).
• Technical Importance: The invention describes a framework for centralized, automated, and policy-driven network administration, moving beyond the manual, device-by-device configuration paradigm ('170 Patent, col. 4:36-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, referring only to the "Exemplary '170 Patent Claims" identified in a non-proffered exhibit (Compl. ¶20). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Receiving a network-condition notification.
  • Determining a response to the notification.
  • Searching a "common repository" for a "central configuration record" that "uniquely, substantially and generically" represents the device's local configuration.
  • Retrieving and modifying the central configuration record.
  • Storing the modified record.
  • Generating a device-specific command (by retrieving and populating a template).
  • Transferring the command to the network device to change its local configuration.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶18).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint does not specifically identify the accused products or services by name (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 18). It refers to them as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 20). Consequently, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for an analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes the '162 and '170 patents by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 18). It further alleges direct infringement based on Defendant's internal testing and use of these products (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 19).

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not provided. The complaint asserts that these charts demonstrate how the accused products "practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary... Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 20). Without access to these exhibits or a description of the accused products, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

Identified Points of Contention

• Architectural Questions: A central dispute will likely concern whether the architecture of the accused products aligns with the claimed systems. For the '162 patent, this raises the question of whether the accused products utilize a "command-format template" to abstract device commands. For the '170 patent, the question is whether the products employ a "central configuration record" stored in a "common repository" that is modified to drive automated, policy-based changes on network devices.
• Functional Questions: The claims of both patents recite specific automated functions. For example, claim 1 of the '162 patent requires "comparing the network event with a collection of policies to determine a response" ('162 Patent, col. 13:6-8). The court may need to determine if the accused products perform this specific comparison and response determination, or if the process is more manually driven by an administrator, potentially placing it outside the claim scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'162 Patent

• The Term: "command-format template" (from claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the claimed abstraction layer that enables communication with heterogeneous devices. Its construction will be critical to the infringement analysis, as it defines the specific mechanism required to generate device-specific commands. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether a wide range of configuration scripts or files meet the limitation, or if a more structured, dual-purpose (attribute and format) data structure is required.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself provides a functional definition, stating the template "indicates how to construct a device-specific command for the network device and includes an attribute field" ('162 Patent, col. 13:11-14).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the template library as storing "both the attribute fields required for device configuration and the format for communicating those attribute fields" ('162 Patent, col. 4:36-39). The abstract also refers to storing both "attribute fields" and the "format for communicating." This dual requirement could support a narrower definition than one that merely "indicates how to construct" a command.

'170 Patent

• The Term: "central configuration record" (from claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term defines the nature of the data structure at the heart of the "common repository." The infringement question may turn on whether the accused product's data storage method meets the definition of a "central configuration record" that "uniquely, substantially and generically" represents the local device configuration ('170 Patent, col. 11:13-16).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general, and one might argue that any centralized data entry representing a device's state could qualify.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific embodiment of a configuration record 205 in Figure 5, breaking it down into four distinct portions: a common information model (CIM) data portion, a vendor data portion, a proprietary data portion, and a pointer portion ('170 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 8:56-61). A defendant may argue this detailed embodiment limits the term to a record having these or similar structured components.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement or plead specific facts to support such a claim, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The prayer for relief requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, a standard for awarding attorneys' fees, but does not explicitly request enhanced damages for willfulness (Compl. p. 5, ¶ G.i.).

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

• Evidentiary Sufficiency: A threshold issue is the lack of specificity in the complaint. A primary question will be what specific products are accused and what evidence Plaintiff will be required to produce to substantiate its conclusory allegations that these products meet every limitation of the asserted claims, especially given the absence of the referenced claim chart exhibits.
• Architectural Scope: The case will likely turn on a question of architectural scope: can the patents' claims, which describe a centralized, template-driven, and policy-based management architecture, be construed to read on the architecture of Defendant’s products? The construction of terms like "command-format template" ('162 patent) and "central configuration record" ('170 patent) will be dispositive.
• Degree of Automation: A key functional question will be whether the accused products perform the automated, policy-driven actions required by the claims. The dispute may focus on whether the products merely assist a human administrator in manually performing configuration tasks versus automatically "determining a response" to a "network condition" as claimed in the '170 patent.