DCT
1:25-cv-00609
Alpha Modus Ventures LLC v. Broadcom Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Alpha Modus Ventures, LLC (North Carolina)
- Defendant: Broadcom, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Prince Lobel Tye LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00609, W.D. Tex., 08/11/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant Broadcom maintains regular and established places of business in Austin, Texas, where it employs individuals involved in the research, development, sales, and marketing of the accused products.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Brocade-branded networking products, including its directors, switches, and Fabric Operating System, infringe three patents related to technology for transporting Fibre Channel data over Ethernet networks (FCoE).
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the convergence of data center networks by enabling data from traditional Fibre Channel-based Storage Area Networks (SANs) to be transported over more ubiquitous and cost-effective Ethernet-based Local Area Networks (LANs).
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Azule Technology, a prior owner of the patent applications, disclosed the underlying technology and a parent patent application to Broadcom under a non-disclosure agreement in late 2003. All three patents-in-suit expired on October 21, 2023, indicating the dispute is centered on claims for past monetary damages rather than injunctive relief.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-10-21 | Patent Priority Date ('591, '077, '473 Patents) |
| 2003-12-01 | Azule Technology and Broadcom enter NDA |
| 2016-01-01 | Broadcom acquires Brocade Communications Systems LLC (approx. date) |
| 2021-08-31 | '591 Patent Issued |
| 2022-04-12 | '473 Patent Issued |
| 2022-04-19 | '077 Patent Issued |
| 2023-10-21 | '591, '077, and '473 Patents Expired |
| 2025-08-11 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,108,591 - "Transporting fibre channel over ethernet," issued August 31, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the inefficiency of data centers operating two separate and "disjointed" networks: a general-purpose Local Area Network (LAN) for server communication and a special-purpose, high-cost Storage Area Network (SAN) for storage access, which created "considerable support overhead" ('591 Patent, col. 2:38-41; Compl. ¶21).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and apparatus to unify these networks by transporting Fibre Channel data directly over Ethernet without using expensive IP storage gateways ('591 Patent, col. 3:1-3, col. 4:6-9). The core component is a "Fibre Channel over Ethernet Transformer" (FCoE Transformer), an apparatus that translates Fibre Channel data frames into Ethernet frames, and vice versa, allowing less expensive Ethernet equipment to perform SAN functions ('591 Patent, Abstract, Fig. 8).
- Technical Importance: This approach was designed to reduce data center cost and complexity by enabling the use of a single, standards-based Ethernet infrastructure for both general-purpose and high-performance storage networking ('591 Patent, col. 2:56-58).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶36).
- Claim 1 is a method claim comprising the essential elements of:
- Providing a system with specific components: a Server with an FCoE Host Bus Adapter (HBA), a Layer 2 Ethernet Switch, an FCoE Transformer, and a Fibre Channel Device.
- The FCoE HBA sending an FCoE Frame to the FCoE Transformer via the Ethernet Switch.
- Conveying the FCoE Frame within an Ethernet Frame "without utilizing an IP packet."
- The FCoE Transformer converting the FCoE Frame into a Fibre Channel Frame.
- The FCoE Frame including specific "SOF" (Start of Frame) and "EOF" (End of Frame) fields used to construct the corresponding Fibre Channel Frame.
- The FCoE Transformer sending the resulting Fibre Channel Frame to the Fibre Channel Device.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 11,310,077 - "Transporting fibre channel over ethernet," issued April 19, 2022
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Sharing a common specification with the ’591 Patent, the '077 Patent addresses the same problem of unifying disparate LAN and SAN infrastructures to reduce cost and complexity in data centers ('077 Patent, col. 2:38-41; Compl. ¶21).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method focused specifically on the operation of the FCoE Transformer itself ('077 Patent, Abstract). The method involves the transformer receiving an FCoE frame from a Layer 2 Ethernet switch, converting it into a Fibre Channel frame using information from Start of Frame (SOF) and End of Frame (EOF) fields contained in an "FCoE transport header," and then transporting the resulting Fibre Channel frame ('077 Patent, Abstract, col. 4:26-32).
- Technical Importance: This patent claims a specific method for implementing the protocol conversion at the heart of the FCoE concept, providing a technical pathway to merge SAN and LAN traffic over a single network fabric ('077 Patent, col. 2:56-58).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶45).
- Claim 1 is a method claim comprising the essential elements of:
- Operating an FCoE transformer with both an Ethernet and a fibre channel interface.
- Receiving an FCoE frame at the transformer via a layer 2 Ethernet switch.
- Converting the FCoE frame to a fibre channel frame at the transformer.
- The FCoE frame must include a SOF field and an EOF field within an "FCoE transport header" that are used for encoding the start and end of the resulting fibre channel frame.
- Transporting the fibre channel frame.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 11,303,473 - "Transporting fibre channel over ethernet," issued April 12, 2022
The Invention Explained
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, which shares a common specification with the other patents-in-suit, claims a method of operating an FCoE Host Bus Adapter (HBA). The method involves the HBA connecting to a Layer 2 Ethernet switch and sending an FCoE frame that contains specific SOF and EOF fields within a transport header, which are structured for subsequent conversion into a standard Fibre Channel frame. (Compl. ¶¶51-53).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶54).
- Accused Features: The accused Brocade products are alleged to perform the claimed method of operating an FCoE HBA by connecting to Layer 2 switches and sending FCoE frames with the requisite SOF and EOF transport header fields (Compl. ¶¶119-123).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Products" are identified as Broadcom's Brocade Directors (including the X6 and X7 models), Brocade Fibre Channel Switches (including the G630, G610, G720, and G730 models), and the associated Fabric Operating System (FOS) (Compl. ¶59).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are described as "mission critical" fibre channel networking equipment used in SANs (Compl. ¶57). The complaint alleges these products implement FCoE functionality, enabling the transfer of Fibre Channel frames across an Ethernet infrastructure by encapsulating them in Ethernet packets (Compl. ¶70). A specifications table for the Brocade G630 switch is provided as evidence of its Fibre Channel and related capabilities (Compl. p. 14).
- The complaint alleges that Broadcom acquired Brocade, a "leader in Fibre Channel storage area network switching," in 2016 for approximately $5.5 billion and that the associated business was anticipated to generate approximately $900 million in pro forma non-GAAP EBITDA in fiscal year 2018 (Compl. ¶¶56-57).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'591 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a Server (32) including an FCoE HBA (40); | The Accused Products are alleged to provide a server including an FCoE HBA. | ¶65 | col. 9:16-17 |
| said FCoE HBA (40) including a Virtual Fibre Channel Port (42) and an Ethernet Interface (44); | The Accused Products are alleged to include a Virtual Fibre Channel Port and an Ethernet Interface. | ¶66 | col. 9:18-20 |
| providing a Layer 2 Ethernet Switch (24); | The Accused Products are alleged to provide a Layer 2 Ethernet Switch. | ¶67 | col. 9:21 |
| providing an FCoE Transformer (46) including an Ethernet Interface (44) and a Fibre Channel Interface (48); | The Accused Products are alleged to provide an FCoE Transformer with an Ethernet Interface and a Fibre Channel Interface. | ¶68 | col. 9:22-24 |
| providing a Fibre Channel Device (23); | The Accused Products are alleged to provide a Fibre Channel Device. | ¶69 | col. 9:25 |
| said FCoE HBA (40) sending an FCoE Frame (93) to said FCoE Transformer (46) via said Layer 2 Ethernet Switch (24); | By implementing FCoE, the Accused Products allegedly enable the transfer of frames across an Ethernet infrastructure from an HBA to a transformer. | ¶70 | col. 9:26-29 |
| said FCoE Frame (93) is conveyed in an Ethernet Frame (83) without utilizing an IP packet; | The Accused Products allegedly operate at the data link layer (Layer 2) and therefore do not use network layer (Layer 3) IP packets to convey frames. | ¶71 | col. 9:30-32 |
| said FCoE Transformer (46) converting said FCoE Frame (93) to a Fibre Channel Frame (71); | The Accused Products allegedly include FCoE adapters and switches that permit the conversion of FCoE frames to Fibre Channel frames. | ¶72 | col. 9:33-35 |
| said FCoE Frame (93) including an SOF field (124) for providing an SOF character used to start said Fibre Channel Frame (71)... | The Accused Products' authentication and encryption capabilities are cited as demonstrating they provide an FCoE Frame with the claimed SOF field. | ¶73 | col. 9:36-40 |
| said FCoE Frame (93) including an EOF field (126) for providing an EOF character used to end said Fibre Channel Frame (71)... | The Accused Products' frame-based trunking and routing capabilities are cited as demonstrating they provide an FCoE Frame with the claimed EOF field. | ¶74 | col. 9:41-45 |
| said FCoE Transformer (46) sending said Fibre Channel Frame (71) to said Fibre Channel Device (23). | The Accused Products allegedly include a transformer function that sends the converted Fibre Channel frame to a Fibre Channel device. | ¶75 | col. 9:46-48 |
'077 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving, at the the FCoE transformer, an FCoE frame via a layer 2 Ethernet switch; | The Accused Products allegedly receive FCoE frames at their FCoE transformer component via a Layer 2 Ethernet switch. | ¶96 | col. 18:61-63 |
| converting, at the FCoE transformer, the FCoE frame to a fibre channel frame... | The Accused Products must allegedly permit the conversion of FCoE frames to Fibre Channel frames at the transformer to maintain interoperability. | ¶97 | col. 18:64-65 |
| ...wherein: the FCoE frame includes a SOF field included in an FCoE transport header... | The Accused Products' authentication and encryption capabilities are cited as demonstrating they provide an FCoE frame with the claimed SOF field and header. | ¶98 | col. 19:3-7 |
| ...and the FCoE frame includes an EOF field included in an FCoE transport header... | The Accused Products' frame-based trunking and routing capabilities are cited as demonstrating they provide an FCoE frame with the claimed EOF field and header. | ¶99 | col. 19:8-12 |
| ...and transporting the fibre channel frame. | The Accused Products must transport the fibre channel frame to enable data passage through its switches and devices. A product description is cited to support this capability (Compl. p. 25). | ¶100 | col. 19:13 |
Identified Points of Contention
- System vs. Component Infringement: A primary question for the '591 Patent, which claims a multi-component method, is whether Broadcom directly infringes by selling a single component (the accused switch/director). The complaint's structure, which includes separate counts for direct and induced infringement, suggests an acknowledgment that infringement may require the combination of Broadcom's products with third-party servers and storage devices, making indirect infringement a central issue.
- Scope Questions: The analysis may raise the question of whether the accused Brocade switches and directors, which are marketed as complex networking devices, meet the specific definition of an "FCoE Transformer" as described in the patents, which characterize it as an "interface" for protocol conversion ('591 Patent, col. 4:22-24).
- Technical Questions: What specific evidence does the complaint provide that the Accused Products' general "authentication and encryption capabilities" (Compl. ¶73) or "frame-based trunking" features (Compl. ¶74) demonstrate the presence of the specific SOF and EOF fields required by the claims? The connection between these high-level marketing features and the low-level data frame structure may be a point of dispute.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "FCoE Transformer"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the asserted claims of all three patents. Whether the accused Brocade switches and directors fall within the scope of this term will be a critical issue. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patents depict it as a specific component, while the accused products are feature-rich switches.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines an "FCoE Transformer" functionally as "the interface between the Ethernet and the Fibre Channel SAN network" that is "responsible for converting the FCoE protocol to the Fibre Channel FC-1 protocol and vise-versa" ('591 Patent, col. 4:22-26). This functional definition could support construing the term to cover any device or software module within a larger system that performs this conversion.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Patent figures, such as Figure 8, depict the "FCoE Transformer (46)" as a structurally distinct element from the "Layer 2 Ethernet Switch (24)" and the "FCoE HBA (40)" ('591 Patent, Fig. 8). This could support a narrower construction requiring a standalone or logically separate converter component, rather than a function integrated into a multipurpose switch.
The Term: "providing a Server...; providing a Layer 2 Ethernet Switch...; providing an FCoE Transformer...; providing a Fibre Channel Device"
- Context and Importance: These preamble-like steps in claim 1 of the '591 Patent establish the environment for the claimed method. The construction of "providing" is critical for determining whether a single actor, such as Broadcom, can be held liable for direct infringement when it only sells some of the listed components.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not define "providing." A party arguing for a broad construction may assert that one "provides" the system by selling or offering for sale a key component (e.g., the FCoE Transformer/Switch) that is designed and intended for use with the other, conventional components to practice the invention.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrow construction may assert that "providing" requires supplying, controlling, or directing the use of all listed components. Since Broadcom does not manufacture or sell the "Server (32)" or "Fibre Channel Device (23)" (e.g., storage array), it could argue that it does not perform this step and therefore cannot be a direct infringer.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all patents-in-suit. The basis is that Broadcom knowingly "induces, aids, and directs others," including customers, to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner, consistent with Broadcom's instructions (Compl. ¶¶85, 88, 110, 113, 133, 136).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. The primary basis is the allegation that in late 2003, Azule Technology, a predecessor-in-interest to the patents, disclosed the technology and the parent patent application to Broadcom under a Non-Disclosure Agreement (Compl. ¶¶60, 80, 105, 128). The complaint also notes that Broadcom was a member of the INCITS FCoE standard-setting committee (Compl. ¶58).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of direct vs. indirect infringement: Will the sale of Broadcom's networking switches be found to constitute direct infringement of the multi-component system claims, or will the case depend on Plaintiff proving that Broadcom induced its customers to assemble and operate the claimed infringing systems?
- A second key question will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "FCoE Transformer," which the patents describe as an "interface" for protocol conversion, be construed to cover the accused Brocade products, which are marketed as sophisticated, multi-function switches and directors?
- A pivotal evidentiary question will be the impact of pre-suit knowledge: The case may turn on the factual evidence surrounding the alleged 2003 disclosure of the parent patent application to Broadcom under an NDA, as this allegation forms the foundation for Plaintiff's claims of willful infringement and specific intent to induce, which could lead to enhanced damages.