DCT
1:19-cv-00605
Data Scape Ltd v. Dell Tech Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Data Scape Limited (Ireland)
- Defendant: Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., and EMC Corporation (Delaware & Massachusetts)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, PC; Russ August & Kabat
- Case Identification: 6:19-cv-00605, W.D. Tex., 02/13/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because each defendant has established places of business within the Western District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s data replication products, including Data Domain and RecoverPoint, infringe four patents related to communication systems and methods for transferring data between devices.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for managing and synchronizing data between networked storage systems, a key function in enterprise-level data backup and disaster recovery.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-09-21 | Priority Date for '537, '929, '581 Patents |
| 2002-06-12 | Priority Date for '893 Patent |
| 2009-11-10 | U.S. Patent No. 7,617,537 Issued |
| 2010-05-18 | U.S. Patent No. 7,720,929 Issued |
| 2013-02-26 | U.S. Patent No. 8,386,581 Issued |
| 2017-07-25 | U.S. Patent No. 9,715,893 Issued |
| 2019-02-13 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,386,581 - "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method"
- Issued: February 26, 2013
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶11). The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses challenges in transferring large amounts of data, such as a music library, from a central server to a portable device. Transferring files individually is described as "cumbersome," while batch transfers can create confusion regarding which files are designated for which device or purpose. (’537 Patent, col. 1:24-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communication apparatus (a "server") that maintains distinct lists of content data, with each list being uniquely associated with a specific external apparatus (a "player") via an identifier. When an external apparatus connects, the server extracts the correct list from a plurality of lists and controls the transfer of content based on that specific list, thereby managing synchronization tasks for multiple, distinct devices. (’581 Patent, Abstract; ’537 Patent, col. 4:6-21).
- Technical Importance: This system provided a structured method for managing asynchronous data synchronization between a central repository and multiple endpoint devices, an important function for organizing digital media collections across devices like PCs and portable players. (’537 Patent, col. 1:41-67).
Key Claims at a Glance
The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A communication apparatus comprising a storage unit, a communication unit, and a controller.
- The controller is configured to edit a list to register content data.
- The controller is configured to uniquely associate the list with an external apparatus using a unique identification.
- The controller is configured to extract the list associated with the external apparatus from a plurality of lists when the external apparatus connects.
- The controller is configured to control the transferring of content data registered in the extracted list to the external apparatus.
U.S. Patent No. 7,720,929 - "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method"
- Issued: May 18, 2010
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶29). The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’581 Patent, this invention addresses the management of data transfers between a primary apparatus (server) and a secondary apparatus (player). (’537 Patent, col. 1:9-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a user can edit the management information governing a data transfer (i.e., the list of data to be sent) on a second apparatus "without regard to the connection" status of the first apparatus. A detector determines when the two devices are connected, and a controller then initiates the data transfer based on the pre-edited management information, decoupling the configuration of the task from its execution. (’929 Patent, Abstract). The controller also compares management information between the two devices to determine what data to transmit. (’929 Patent, Claim 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows for the "offline" management of data synchronization tasks, which can improve workflow efficiency by enabling a user to queue up large data transfers without requiring the target device to be physically connected at the time of configuration. (’537 Patent, col. 15:55-67).
Key Claims at a Glance
The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A communication system with a first apparatus and a second apparatus.
- The second apparatus comprising a storage medium for management information, a communicator, a detector, an editor, and a controller.
- The detector is configured to detect if the apparatuses are connected.
- The editor is configured to edit the management information "without regard to the connection" of the first apparatus.
- The controller is configured to control the data transfer based on the edited information "when said detector detects" a connection.
- The controller is further configured to compare the edited management information with management information on the first apparatus and transmit data based on the comparison.
U.S. Patent No. 7,617,537 - "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method"
- Issued: November 10, 2009
Technology Synopsis
The patent describes a method for synchronizing content between a first apparatus and a second apparatus by comparing lists of content data on each device. The method involves transferring data that is registered on the second apparatus's list but not the first's, and deleting data from the first apparatus that is registered on its list but not on the second's. (’537 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶¶ 51-53). This ensures the content on the first apparatus is synchronized to match the list maintained by the second apparatus.
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts independent claim 43. (Compl. ¶47).
Accused Features
The accused functionality is the Data Domain Replicator's ability to synchronize data between a source and destination system, which allegedly involves comparing content lists to determine which new data to transmit and which deleted data to replicate as a deletion on the destination. (Compl. ¶¶ 51-53).
U.S. Patent No. 9,715,893 - "Recording Apparatus, Server Apparatus, Recording Method, Program and Storage Medium"
- Issued: July 25, 2017
Technology Synopsis
The patent claims a method where an information processing apparatus automatically reads management data from two storage mediums to identify files present on the first but absent from the second. The apparatus then automatically transfers the absent files to the second medium and automatically displays the transfer status using a "symbolic figure." (’893 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶¶ 67-69).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶64).
Accused Features
The accused functionality includes the Data Domain Replicator's alleged process of automatically identifying and transferring new or changed data from a source to a destination. The system's graphical user interface, which displays the status of the replication process, is alleged to be the claimed "symbolic figure." (Compl. ¶¶ 68-69).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Accused Instrumentalities are identified as Defendant's products and services, including "Data Domain software and hardware, RecoverPoint software and hardware, and all versions and variations thereof." (Compl. ¶9).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the Accused Instrumentalities as systems for data backup and replication. (Compl. ¶12). The EMC Data Domain Replicator is alleged to manage the replication of backup data between two or more Data Domain systems, which can serve as source or destination devices. (Compl. ¶12). The complaint provides a diagram illustrating "One-to-many replication," where data flows from a single source system to several destination systems for purposes of data protection or multi-site data distribution. (Compl. p. 7, Figure 23). This functionality is central to enterprise data protection, business continuity, and disaster recovery strategies.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 8,386,581 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a communication apparatus comprising: a storage unit configured to store content data to a storage medium; | A Data Domain system includes disks and/or solid-state storage media configured in a RAID 6 configuration and uses NVRAM to store content data. | ¶13 | '537 Patent, col. 5:49-51 |
| a communication unit configured to communicate with an external apparatus; | A Data Domain system includes networking capabilities to connect and communicate with another Data Domain system over a wide area network (WAN). | ¶14 | '537 Patent, col. 5:29-33 |
| and a controller configured to edit a list so that content data is registered in the list, | Data Domain Replicator includes command-line and graphical tools that allow a user to select content (e.g., a directory or MTree) for replication, thereby registering it in a list of replication tasks. The complaint includes a screenshot of a graphical user interface showing replication pairs being managed. (Compl. p. 6, Figure 12). | ¶15 | '537 Patent, col. 15:55-60 |
| to uniquely associate the list with the external apparatus using a unique identification of the external apparatus, | Each replication task creates a unique list of data associated with a specific destination, which is identified by a unique identifier such as a system name or host name. | ¶16 | '537 Patent, col. 24:1-5 |
| to extract the list associated with the external apparatus from a plurality of lists...when the external apparatus is connected..., | When a destination system connects, the source system identifies the specific list of data designated for that destination from a potential plurality of lists corresponding to multiple possible destinations. | ¶17 | '537 Patent, col. 26:1-12 |
| and to control transferring of content data registered in the extracted list to the external apparatus. | The system controls the data replication process to ensure that only the data registered in the list is transferred, and only when the source and destination apparatuses are properly connected. | ¶18 | '537 Patent, col. 16:60-67 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether the term "list," as described in the patent's context of music tracks for a portable player, can be construed to cover a "replication pair" or "MTree" configuration in an enterprise backup system. The defense may argue that the technical context limits the term's scope.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the source system "extracts" a list from a "plurality of lists." A technical question is whether the accused system's architecture, which manages multiple independent replication jobs, performs the specific function of "extracting" one list from a larger set, as might be required by the claim language.
U.S. Patent No. 7,720,929 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a second apparatus comprising...an editor configured to...edit said management information...without regard to the connection of said first apparatus. | Data Domain Replicator provides tools (e.g., DD System Manager) that allow a user to select data and edit replication settings, which constitutes editing management information. This editing can be performed regardless of whether the source and destination systems are connected. | ¶34 | '537 Patent, col. 15:55-60 |
| a detector configured to detect whether said first apparatus and a second apparatus are connected. | The Data Domain Replicator uses a detector, such as the "replication initialize" command, to check the configuration and connection status between the source and destination systems before starting a transfer. | ¶33 | '537 Patent, FIG. 13, S57 |
| a controller configured to control transfer of the selected data...when said detector detects that said first apparatus and said second apparatus are connected. | The system controls data replication to ensure data is transferred only when the systems are connected and not in an error state such as "Disconnected." The complaint references a screenshot showing the status of replication pairs. (Compl. p. 19, Figure 12). | ¶35 | '537 Patent, col. 16:60-67 |
| wherein said controller is configured to compare said management information...with management information of data stored in said first storage medium and to transmit data...based on result of the comparison. | The source system transmits data to the destination system based on a comparison of management information, such as metadata exchanged between the systems to perform deduplication and avoid sending redundant data segments already present on the destination. The complaint provides a diagram illustrating this "Cross-Site Deduplication." (Compl. p. 22, Figure 3). | ¶36 | '537 Patent, col. 20:20-29 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The interpretation of "without regard to the connection" may be disputed. The question could be raised whether this limitation requires that editing can only occur offline, or simply that a connection is not a prerequisite for editing.
- Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether the "comparison" performed by the accused products for deduplication purposes is the same as the "comparison" of management information described in the patent. The patent's specification describes comparing file lists to identify missing items, which may be argued as a different technical process from comparing data block hashes for deduplication.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "list" (’581 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement theory of the ’581 Patent. Its construction will determine whether a modern data replication configuration, such as a "replication pair," falls within the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could either confine the patent to the disclosed embodiments (music playlists) or allow it to cover a broader range of data management systems.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself uses the general term "content data" rather than a more specific term like "musical data." The term "list" is not explicitly defined in a limiting way in the patent's text.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification of the parent patents is heavily situated in the context of a "music server," "portable audio-data playback apparatus," and "musical data." (’537 Patent, col. 1:11-12, 27-28). Figures in the parent patents, such as FIG. 10, explicitly label the element as a "Music List," which could support a narrower construction tied to the disclosed embodiments.
Term: "compare said management information...with management information of data stored in said first storage medium" (’929 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The definition of this comparison step is critical to whether the accused products' deduplication functionality infringes the ’929 Patent. The dispute may center on whether block-level data deduplication is technically equivalent to the comparison process disclosed in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is broad and could be argued to encompass any technical process where information about the data state on the source and destination is compared to determine which data segments need to be transferred.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification of the parent ’537 Patent describes a process of comparing two "lists" to identify files to be added or deleted based on their presence or absence from each list. (’537 Patent, col. 20:20-42). This could be framed as a file-level metadata comparison, which is arguably a distinct and different process from the block-level hash comparison used in modern data deduplication.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all four patents. The allegations are based on Defendants providing customers with user manuals, marketing materials, product support, and training that allegedly instruct and encourage users to operate the Accused Instrumentalities in their normal, infringing manner (i.e., replicating data between systems). (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 39, 56, 72).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patents. Instead, it asserts that Defendants will have knowledge of the patents and their infringement as of the filing of the complaint, suggesting a basis for post-suit willful infringement. (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 37, 54, 70).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms like "list," which are rooted in a patent family describing a consumer "music server" and "portable audio playback apparatus," be construed broadly enough to cover the complex replication configurations and management policies of modern enterprise data backup and disaster recovery systems?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical equivalence: does the accused products' use of cross-site deduplication, which involves comparing data block hashes to avoid redundant transfers, perform the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result as the claimed step of "comparing" management information, which the patent specification describes as a comparison of file lists?
- For the '893 patent, a central question may be one of characterization: does a standard graphical user interface element, such as a progress bar or status indicator showing the state of a data transfer, meet the claim limitation of "automatically displaying transferring status...by a symbolic figure?"