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 and Massachusetts)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 6:19-cv-00311, W.D. Tex., 05/20/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that each Defendant has established places of business, is registered to do business, and has transacted business within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s enterprise data replication and backup products infringe patents related to communication systems that manage and transfer data between two separate hardware apparatuses.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for synchronizing data between storage systems, a key function in modern data backup, disaster recovery, and digital content management.
• 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	Earliest Priority Date for ’675 and ’751 Patents
2018-07-17	U.S. Patent No. 10,277,675 ('675) Issued
2018-07-17	U.S. Patent No. 10,027,751 ('751) Issued
2019-05-20	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,277,675 - "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,277,675, "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method," issued July 17, 2018.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty and cumbersomeness of managing and transferring large collections of digital media (e.g., music) between a large-capacity "music server" and a portable playback device. Manually selecting and transferring files piece-by-piece is inefficient, and creating transfer lists can be confusing if the list's purpose (organization vs. transfer) is unclear (’751 Patent, col. 2:41-60).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a user can create and edit a dedicated "transfer list" of data on a second apparatus (e.g., a server) independently of, and prior to, establishing a connection with a first apparatus (e.g., a portable device). Once the devices are connected, the system confirms the connection and then automatically transfers the data in a batch according to the pre-edited list, streamlining the synchronization process (’751 Patent, col. 3:1-15; Fig. 13).
• Technical Importance: This approach separated the user-facing task of data selection from the technical process of data transfer, addressing a key usability challenge for consumers managing large digital libraries in the early 2000s (’751 Patent, col. 2:41-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶11).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A communication system with a first apparatus (e.g., a destination device) and a second apparatus (e.g., a source device).
  • The second apparatus has a second hardware storage medium for management information and a hardware interface to communicate with the first apparatus.
  • A processor in the second apparatus is configured to:
    • detect if the two apparatuses are connected;
    • select data and edit the management information "without regard to the connection" of the two apparatuses;
    • compare the edited management information with management information on the first apparatus; and
    • transmit the selected data when the apparatuses are connected, based on the result of the comparison.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶11).

U.S. Patent No. 10,027,751 - "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,027,751, "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method," issued July 17, 2018.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As this patent shares a common specification with the ’675 Patent, it addresses the same problems of inefficiently managing and transferring large sets of digital data between devices (’751 Patent, col. 2:41-60).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is substantively identical to that of the ’675 Patent, involving the creation of a transfer list on a source device before it is connected to a destination device for a batch transfer (’751 Patent, col. 3:1-15).
• Technical Importance: The technical importance is the same as described for the ’675 Patent.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A communication apparatus (the source) configured to transmit data to an apparatus (the destination).
  • The communication apparatus comprises functionally-defined components: a "storage medium," a "communicator," a "detector," an "editor," and a "controller."
  • The editor is configured to select data and edit management information "without regard to the connection" of the two apparatuses.
  • The controller is configured to control the data transfer when the detector confirms a connection, and the controller is further configured to:
    • compare management information on the source with management information on the destination;
    • determine a size of the selected data; and
    • transmit the data based on the result of the comparison and the size determination.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶29).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's "Data Domain software and hardware, RecoverPoint software and hardware, and all versions and variations thereof" (Compl. ¶9, ¶27).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused products as enterprise-level data protection and disaster recovery (DR) solutions (Compl. ¶12, ¶14). Their core function is to replicate backup data between two hardware systems, designated as a "source" and a "destination" (Compl. ¶12). Users can select data (e.g., a directory or MTree) for replication using command-line or graphical interfaces, which edits the system's internal configuration settings (Compl. ¶16, ¶34). The system performs checks, such as verifying the connection status and comparing data between the source and destination (e.g., for deduplication) to ensure efficient and reliable data transfer (Compl. ¶15, ¶17, ¶33, ¶36). The complaint also alleges the products monitor storage capacity and can generate warnings or halt transfers when the destination is full (Compl. ¶37). The screenshot in Figure 12 of the complaint depicts a user interface for managing replication pairs between source and destination systems, showing their status and other metrics (Compl. p. 7, Fig. 12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

10,277,675 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
[a] communication system including a first apparatus having a first hardware storage medium, and a second apparatus	The accused system comprises two Data Domain systems that communicate with each other, one acting as a source (second apparatus) and the other as a destination (first apparatus), each with hardware storage. The relationship is depicted in a system diagram from Defendant's documentation (Compl. p. 8, Fig. 21).	¶12	col. 3:3-5
said second apparatus comprising: a second hardware storage medium configured to store management information of data to be transferred to said first storage medium	The source Data Domain system includes disks and/or solid-state storage media that store management information, such as replication configuration settings and folder metadata.	¶13	col. 3:7-10
a hardware interface configured to communicate data with said first apparatus	The source Data Domain system connects to the destination Data Domain system over a hardware interface such as a wide area network (WAN).	¶14	col. 3:11-12
a processor configured to: detect whether said first apparatus and said second apparatus are connected	Data Domain Replicator uses a detector, such as the "replication initialize" command, to check if the source and destination systems are correctly configured and connected before beginning a transfer.	¶15	col. 3:14-16
select certain data to be transferred; [and] edit said management information based on said selection without regard to the connection of said first apparatus and said second apparatus	The Data Domain Replicator provides command-line and graphical tools that allow a user to select data (e.g., a directory or MTree) to be transferred. This selection edits internal configuration information, and the complaint alleges this editing occurs without regard to the connection status of the two systems.	¶16	col. 3:16-20
compare said management information edited by said processor with management information of data stored in said first storage medium	The source system transmits data to the destination system based on a comparison of management information, such as metadata for cross-site deduplication, to determine which data segments the destination already possesses and avoid redundant transfers.	¶17	col. 3:21-23
transmit the selected data stored in said second apparatus to said first apparatus via said hardware interface based on said management information edited by said processor when said processor detects that said first apparatus and said second apparatus are connected based upon a result of the comparison	The system controls data replication to ensure that only the user-selected data is transferred, and only when the systems are properly connected (e.g., not in a "Disconnected" error state), with the transfer being optimized based on the comparison (e.g., deduplication).	¶18	col. 3:24-29

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The patent specification is written in the context of a consumer "music server" and a "portable" audio device (’751 Patent, col. 2:13-14, 30-34). A central question will be whether generic claim terms like "apparatus" and "communication system" can be construed to cover enterprise-grade data backup and disaster recovery hardware, or if they are limited by the patent's disclosure to the consumer electronics field.
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires that editing management information occurs "without regard to the connection." The complaint alleges this element is met, but a court may need to determine if the accused product's configuration process for selecting data is truly independent of the properties or status of the destination system, as the claim requires.

10,027,751 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
[a] communication apparatus configured to transmit data to an apparatus...including: a hardware storage medium configured to store management information of data to be transferred	A source Data Domain system (the "communication apparatus") includes hardware storage (disks/SSD) to store management information (e.g., replication settings) for data to be transferred to a destination Data Domain system (the "apparatus").	¶30, ¶31	col. 29:63-66
a communicator configured to communicate data with the apparatus	A Data Domain system includes a communicator, such as a WAN interface, to connect and communicate with another Data Domain system.	¶32	col. 30:1-2
a detector configured to detect whether the communication apparatus and the apparatus are connected	The Data Domain Replicator software includes a detector function that determines if the source and destination are connected, for example, by using a "replication initialize" command that checks connections.	¶33	col. 30:3-5
an editor configured to select certain data to be transferred and to edit the management information based on the selection without regard to the connection...	The Data Domain Replicator includes an editor (e.g., GUI or CLI tools) that allows a user to select data for transfer, which edits the system's management information. This editing is alleged to be performed without regard to the connection status.	¶34	col. 30:6-10
a controller configured to control transfer of the selected data... when the detector detects that the... apparatuses are connected	A controller within the accused products ensures that data transfer occurs only for the selected data and only when a connection is detected (e.g., not in an error state like "Disconnected," as shown in a status table from Defendant's documentation).	¶35; p. 9	col. 30:11-16
wherein the controller is configured to compare the management information edited by the editor with management information of data stored in the apparatus	The controller in the source system replicates data by comparing management information (e.g., metadata for deduplication) with that of the destination system to determine which data needs to be sent.	¶36	col. 30:17-20
determine a size of the selected data in the communication apparatus, and transmit data... based on result of the comparison and the determination	The controller determines if a transfer can proceed by keeping track of available storage space on the destination. The system generates warnings as capacity is reached, which constitutes a "determination" of size relative to capacity. The data is then transmitted based on this determination and the deduplication "comparison."	¶37	col. 30:21-25

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Functional Language: This patent uses functional claim language (e.g., "detector configured to", "editor configured to"). This raises the question of whether these terms invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and, if so, whether the specification discloses adequate corresponding structure for performing these functions.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement theory for the "determine a size" limitation relies on the accused product's general file system capacity monitoring (Compl. ¶37). It may be disputed whether this general monitoring is equivalent to the claim's requirement of determining the size of the specific selected data as part of the transfer control logic.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For both the ’675 and ’751 Patents:

• The Term: "without regard to the connection of said first apparatus and said second apparatus"
• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the independence of the data selection and editing process from the state of the network connection. Its construction is critical because if the accused products require any information about the destination system or connection to configure a replication job, they may not infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the selection process is truly decoupled from the physical or logical connection.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's summary emphasizes that the invention solves a problem where cumbersome work is repeated, and proposes a method of creating a list of pieces of music and transferring them in a batch (’751 Patent, col. 2:41-52). This suggests the term's purpose is to allow a user to prepare a transfer job offline, before a connection is active.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flowchart in FIG. 13 shows editing a transfer list (S55) is performed before issuing a transfer command (S56) and checking if the portable apparatus has been mounted (S57). A party could argue this sequence implies total logical and physical independence, meaning the selection process cannot rely on any attributes of the destination, which might not be the case in a sophisticated enterprise replication system.

For the ’751 Patent:

• The Term: "controller is configured to ... determine a size of the selected data"
• Context and Importance: The infringement case hinges on equating the accused product's general disk capacity monitoring with this specific claimed function. The construction will determine whether a general "is there enough space" check meets the limitation, or if a more specific calculation of the size of the selected data set is required.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's flowchart in FIG. 9 shows a specific step to "Measure the size of the specified musical data" (S42) and then check if the destination has a "free area large enough" (S43). This supports an interpretation where checking for sufficient space inherently involves a "determination" of the size of the data to be transferred.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language requires determining the size "of the selected data," not just checking the destination's remaining capacity. A defendant may argue that the evidence cited in the complaint—general system warnings when a file system is 90% or 100% full (Compl. ¶37)—is a generic system health monitor, not a specific calculation tied to a particular set of "selected data" for a pending transfer, as the patent figure suggests.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by providing customers with user manuals, marketing materials, product support, and training that instruct and encourage users to operate the Accused Instrumentalities in their normal, infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶20-21, 39-40). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the products are especially made for this use and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶22, 41).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' knowledge of the patents and their infringement "since at least the filing of the original Complaint in this action, or shortly thereafter" (Compl. ¶¶19, 38). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms like "apparatus", which are rooted in the patent's disclosure of consumer "music servers" and "portable" audio players, be construed broadly enough to read on the accused enterprise-grade data backup and disaster recovery systems? The outcome may depend heavily on whether the court limits claim scope to the specific embodiments disclosed.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused products' functionality align with specific claim limitations? In particular, can Plaintiff provide sufficient evidence that (1) configuring a replication job is performed "without regard to the connection" to the destination system, and (2) the products' general disk capacity monitoring performs the specific function of "determin[ing] a size of the selected data" as required by Claim 1 of the ’751 Patent?