DCT

1:24-cv-00602

Innovations In Memory LLC v. Dell Tech Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00602, W.D. Tex., 05/31/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendants having regular and established places of business in the district, including a principal place of business at One Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that a wide range of Dell’s enterprise storage products, including its PowerMax, VMAX, PowerFlex, PowerScale, and Unity lines, infringe six patents related to data storage system management and performance optimization.
  • Technical Context: The patents address fundamental challenges in modern enterprise storage, including automated tiered storage management, distributed resource allocation in RAID systems, data consistency, and network path redundancy.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff acquired the asserted patent portfolio from Violin Memory in 2021. The complaint details pre-suit communications, including a letter sent to Dell on August 11, 2022, and a subsequent call. The complaint also alleges Dell had knowledge of several of the asserted patents years prior to this letter, based on their citation as prior art during the prosecution of Dell’s own patent applications, a factor that may be significant for the willfulness claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-09-09 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,672,226
2007-11-21 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,452,929
2008-09-30 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,160,070
2008-11-13 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,285,961
2009-04-17 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,417,871
2010-03-02 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 7,672,226
2012-04-17 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 8,160,070
2012-08-14 Alleged Dell notice of ’226 Patent via Information Disclosure Statement
2012-10-09 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 8,285,961
2012-04-20 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,304,714
2013-04-09 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 8,417,871
2013-05-28 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 8,452,929
2016-04-05 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 9,304,714
2020-05-01 Alleged Dell notice of ’714 Patent via USPTO Non-Final Rejection
2021-05-26 Alleged Dell notice of ’929 Patent via USPTO Non-Final Rejection
2021-09-03 Alleged Dell notice of ’961 Patent via USPTO Final Rejection
2022-03-24 Alleged Dell notice of ’871 Patent via USPTO Non-Final Rejection
2022-08-11 Plaintiff sends letter to Defendant identifying certain patents-in-suit
2022-08-15 Defendant confirms receipt of Plaintiff's letter
2022-08-26 Parties hold a call to discuss a potential license
2024-05-31 Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,285,961 - "Dynamic performance virtualization for disk access," issued October 9, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of managing block-level storage where different data volumes have different performance requirements, known as Service Level Agreements (SLAs), for metrics like I/O operations per second (IOPs), latency, and throughput (Compl. ¶1; ’961 Patent, col. 1:11-20). Manually allocating data across different tiers of storage (e.g., fast, expensive DRAM/Flash vs. slower, cheaper disk) to meet these varying SLAs is complex and inefficient (’961 Patent, col. 2:27-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "performance virtualization appliance" that automates this process. The system monitors the actual performance of different storage volumes, compares it to their assigned SLAs, and dynamically allocates faster "tiering media" (like Flash memory or DRAM) to volumes that are underperforming (’961 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:18-26). It also generates metrics to evaluate how effectively different types of tiering media improve performance, allowing for more intelligent allocation decisions (’961 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enables automated, policy-driven management of tiered storage, a key technology for optimizing the trade-off between cost and performance in large-scale enterprise data centers (’961 Patent, col. 2:42-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • Logic circuitry configured to identify service level agreements associated with different storage volumes;
    • Logic circuitry configured to monitor storage access performance for the different storage volumes;
    • Logic circuitry configured to compare the storage access performance with the service level agreements; and
    • Logic circuitry configured to allocate tiering media to the different storage volumes, including allocating more tiering media in response to performance not meeting the service level agreements.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 9,304,714 - "LUN management with distributed RAID controllers," issued April 5, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In a storage system with multiple distributed RAID controllers accessing a common set of memory modules, there is a risk of conflict when managing shared resources. If two different controllers attempt to allocate the same block of free memory to different Logical Units (LUNs) at the same time, it can lead to data inconsistency and corruption (’714 Patent, col. 1:10-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method for maintaining data consistency across distributed controllers. Each controller maintains what is intended to be a "same pool of free memory areas." When one controller ("the first controller") allocates a memory area to a LUN, it updates its local pool and then sends a request to the other controllers to make the same change. The other controllers verify if the memory area is available in their respective pools and return a success or failure message. This distributed process ensures all controllers maintain a coherent state without a central bottleneck (’714 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:12-28).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a mechanism for decentralized, coherent management of storage resources, which is critical for the scalability and reliability of high-availability, multi-controller storage architectures (’714 Patent, col. 1:45-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 12 (Compl. ¶30).
  • The essential elements of independent method claim 12 are:
    • Maintaining, at a group of controllers, a same pool of free memory areas;
    • Receiving a request for maintenance of a logical unit at a first controller;
    • Selecting a first free memory area from the pool at the first controller and associating it with the logical unit;
    • Deleting the first free memory area from the pool of the first controller;
    • Requesting that each of the other controllers associate the first free memory area with the logical unit; and
    • Receiving, at the first controller, a success or failure status message from the other controllers.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,452,929 - "Method and system for storage of data in non-volatile media," issued May 28, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses data consistency and recovery in non-volatile memory systems. It discloses a method for recovering from a system crash by using a checkpointed metadata table and a transaction log, and further "discovering" any data changes written to memory after the last log entry but before the crash by scanning memory blocks to ensure the metadata is fully reconstructed (’929 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 35 (Compl. ¶42).
  • Accused Features: Dell's PowerScale products with PowerScale OneFS functionality are accused, with the complaint specifically calling out the use of "snapshots and journaling" (Compl. ¶¶41, 45).

U.S. Patent No. 7,672,226 - "Method, apparatus and program storage device for verifying existence of a redundant fibre channel path," issued March 2, 2010

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for ensuring high availability in a Fibre Channel network. The invention verifies that a redundant (backup) communication path exists and is accessible before a failover event occurs, thereby confirming that connectivity can be successfully restored if the primary path fails (’226 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 18 (Compl. ¶54).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Dell's Unity all-flash and hybrid-flash storage arrays with PowerPath functionality, which allegedly use Fibre Channel connections and detect connection changes to manage redundant paths (Compl. ¶¶53, 58).

U.S. Patent No. 8,160,070 - "Fibre channel proxy," issued April 17, 2012

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a "proxy" device that can be transparently inserted into a Fibre Channel network between an initiator (e.g., a server) and a target (e.g., storage). The proxy spoofs the network identifiers (World Wide Names) of the end devices, allowing it to intercept and manage traffic for purposes such as caching or acceleration without requiring reconfiguration of the existing network devices (’070 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶66).
  • Accused Features: Dell's PowerEdge MX Networking Architecture products, such as the PowerEdge MX7000 Modular Chassis, are accused, specifically in connection with their "Dell EMC OpenManage Enterprise Modular (OME-Modular)" software and support for "virtual Fibre Channel operations" (Compl. ¶¶65, 68).

U.S. Patent No. 8,417,871 - "System for increasing storage media performance," issued April 9, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method to improve storage system performance by increasing read availability. The system iteratively writes the same data to multiple separate media devices. This duplication allows a read request to be serviced by an available device even if other devices holding the same data are busy with write operations, thereby reducing read latency and improving Quality of Service (QoS) (’871 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 13 (Compl. ¶77).
  • Accused Features: Dell's PowerMax and VMAX products are accused, with the complaint pointing to their use of Symmetrix Remote Data Facility (SRDF) for data replication and "Service Levels for storage tiers" as the infringing functionalities (Compl. ¶¶76, 81).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Product Identification: The complaint accuses multiple families of Dell's enterprise storage products:

    • For the ’961 and ’871 Patents: PowerMax, VMAX All Flash, and EMC VMAX products (Compl. ¶¶17, 76).
    • For the ’714 Patent: PowerFlex appliance and rack products with PowerFlex software (Compl. ¶29).
    • For the ’929 Patent: PowerScale All-flash, Hybrid, and Archive products with PowerScale OneFS functionality (Compl. ¶41).
    • For the ’226 Patent: Unity and Unity XT series of all-flash and hybrid-flash storage arrays with PowerPath functionality (Compl. ¶53).
    • For the ’070 Patent: PowerEdge MX Networking Architecture products, including the PowerEdge MX7000 Modular Chassis with OME-Modular software (Compl. ¶65).

  • Functionality and Market Context: The accused products represent a significant portion of Dell's enterprise storage portfolio, targeting high-performance, high-availability data center environments (Compl. ¶¶21, 33, 45, 58, 68, 81). The complaint alleges that specific software features within these product lines implement the patented technologies. These features include "Fully Automated Storage Tiering (FAST)" for automated data placement, "PowerFlex" software-defined storage for distributed resource management, "OneFS" journaling for data protection, "PowerPath" for multipathing and failover, and "virtual Fibre Channel" operations for network management (Compl. ¶¶17, 33, 45, 53, 68).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits that are not provided; therefore, the narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

  • '961 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Dell's products with "Fully Automated Storage Tiering (FAST)" functionality infringe the '961 Patent (Compl. ¶17). The theory appears to be that the FAST system's automated process of monitoring workload and moving data blocks between different tiers of storage (e.g., from disk to flash) to meet performance objectives directly corresponds to the claim elements of monitoring performance, comparing it to service level agreements, and "allocat[ing] tiering media" to meet those agreements (Compl. ¶¶18, 21).

    • Identified Points of Contention: A primary question may be one of claim scope: does the act of migrating data blocks to a faster storage tier constitute "allocat[ing] tiering media to... storage volumes" as recited in the claim, or does the claim require a more formal dedication or partitioning of the media itself? The analysis may turn on whether Dell's performance policies function as the claimed "service level agreements."

  • '714 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Dell's PowerFlex products, which utilize a software-defined, multi-node architecture, infringe the '714 Patent (Compl. ¶29). The infringement theory is that the PowerFlex system's distributed nodes act as the claimed "group of controllers," each maintaining a view of the shared storage pool ("a same pool of free memory areas"). When storage is allocated, one node allegedly selects a free area and communicates this change to the other nodes to ensure a consistent state across the cluster, mirroring the claimed method of distributed LUN management (Compl. ¶¶30, 33).

    • Identified Points of Contention: A key technical question will be whether the PowerFlex architecture actually operates as claimed. Does each node maintain a "same pool," or does the system use a different consensus mechanism, such as a primary/secondary model or a distributed lock manager, that might not align with the claim's specific steps for selection, deletion, and requesting confirmation?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’961 Patent:

    • The Term: "allocate tiering media"
    • Context and Importance: This term is the central active step of claim 1. The infringement case hinges on whether Dell's FAST functionality, which moves data blocks to different tiers of media, falls within the scope of this term.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes allocating "different amounts 18 of Flash memory 20 and DRAM 22 to the different storage volumes 26" (’961 Patent, col. 3:3-5). Plaintiff may argue this supports a construction where making faster media available for a volume's data constitutes "allocating" that media.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes the allocation in terms of "mappings stored in tables... that indicate what addresses in Flash 20 and DRAM 22 are used in conjunction with the different storage volumes" (’961 Patent, col. 3:26-30). Defendant may argue this language points to a more formal partitioning or reservation of the media resources for a specific volume, rather than the dynamic placement of data blocks.

  • For the ’714 Patent:

    • The Term: "maintaining... a same pool of free memory areas"
    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the distributed and coherent nature of the claimed system. The dispute will likely focus on whether the PowerFlex architecture embodies this specific model of distributed resource management.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language recites "maintaining, at a group of controllers... a same pool of free memory areas" (’714 Patent, col. 12:59-61). Plaintiff may argue that any architecture where multiple controllers have a logically consistent and synchronized view of available storage meets this element, regardless of the underlying synchronization mechanism.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes resolving a conflict that occurs when "the same free memory area is not available in the pool of free memory areas of the controller" (’714 Patent, col. 2:18-20). A defendant could argue this implies that each controller's pool is maintained with a degree of independence such that temporary divergence is possible, requiring the specific conflict resolution steps that follow. An architecture that prevents such divergence (e.g., via a locking protocol) might be argued to fall outside the claim scope.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (Compl. ¶¶21, 33, 45, 57, 68, 80). The allegations are based on Dell actively encouraging and instructing customers and end users on how to configure and use the accused products in an infringing manner through materials such as online instructions, user manuals, and other publications.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents, claiming Dell had knowledge of the patents and the infringing nature of its products (Compl. ¶¶25, 37, 49, 61, 72, 84). The basis for willfulness includes both alleged pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged based on the August 11, 2022 notice letter. Crucially, for five of the six patents, the complaint alleges even earlier knowledge based on USPTO office actions where the asserted patents were cited as prior art against Dell's or its subsidiaries' own patent applications, with the earliest such date being August 14, 2012 for the ’226 patent (Compl. ¶55).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can high-level commercial features, such as Dell’s "Fully Automated Storage Tiering," be construed to practice the specific, step-by-step technical mechanisms recited in the patent claims, such as "allocating tiering media"? The outcome may depend on whether the court finds a direct correspondence in operation or a fundamental mismatch between the commercial function and the claimed invention.
  • A key architectural question will be one of operational equivalence: does the distributed architecture of Dell's PowerFlex products operate according to the specific distributed consensus model of the ’714 patent—where controllers maintain a "same pool" and resolve conflicts—or does it employ a different, non-infringing model for managing shared resources?
  • A central question for damages will be willfulness: the complaint makes specific allegations that Dell had knowledge of the asserted patents for years before being contacted by the plaintiff, based on citations in its own patent prosecution files. This raises a significant question of whether any infringement, if found, was willful, which could expose the defendant to the risk of enhanced damages.