DCT
1:25-cv-00963
Alpha Modus Ventures LLC v. Rackspace US Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Alpha Modus Ventures, LLC (North Carolina)
- Defendant: Rackspace US, Inc. (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dickinson Wright PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00963, W.D. Tex., 06/23/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Rackspace maintains its principal place of business in the district, employs individuals there involved in the development and sale of the accused products, and has previously consented to venue in the district in prior litigation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud networking products infringe three patents related to methods and systems for transporting Fibre Channel data over Ethernet networks.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the unification of two historically separate data center networks—Local Area Networks (LANs) for general traffic and Storage Area Networks (SANs) for storage traffic—to reduce hardware cost, complexity, and management overhead.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that all three patents-in-suit expired in October 2023, which limits the scope of potential damages to the period prior to expiration. The complaint also notes a prior case in the same district where Rackspace consented to venue.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-10-21 | Earliest Priority Date for ’591, ’077, and ’473 Patents |
| 2021-08-31 | U.S. Patent No. 11,108,591 Issued |
| 2022-04-12 | U.S. Patent No. 11,303,473 Issued |
| 2022-04-19 | U.S. Patent No. 11,310,077 Issued |
| 2023-10-21 | ’591, ’077, and ’473 Patents Expired |
| 2025-06-23 | 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 describes the problem of data centers operating two distinct, non-interoperable, and expensive network types: Ethernet-based Local Area Networks (LANs) for general server communication and specialized Fibre Channel-based Storage Area Networks (SANs) for storage access (Compl. ¶¶ 16-21). This "disjointed communication infrastructure" resulted in high equipment costs and "considerable support overhead" (’591 Patent, col. 2:37-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system to unify these networks by transporting native Fibre Channel data frames and signals over standard Ethernet infrastructure (’591 Patent, Abstract). This is accomplished using an apparatus called a "Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) Transformer," which converts Fibre Channel data into Ethernet frames for transport and vice-versa, specifically without encapsulating the data in higher-level IP packets (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 34).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to leverage the cost-effectiveness and widespread adoption of Ethernet technology for high-performance storage networking, thereby reducing the need for expensive, specialized Fibre Channel hardware (Compl. ¶35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶72).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A method providing a system architecture with a Server containing an FCoE Host Bus Adapter (HBA), a Layer 2 Ethernet Switch, an FCoE Transformer, and a Fibre Channel Device.
- The FCoE HBA sends an FCoE Frame to the FCoE Transformer via the Ethernet Switch.
- The FCoE Frame is conveyed within an Ethernet Frame "without utilizing an IP packet."
- The FCoE Transformer converts the FCoE Frame back to a native Fibre Channel Frame.
- The FCoE Frame includes specific Start-of-Frame (SOF) and End-of-Frame (EOF) fields used to construct the native Fibre Channel Frame.
- The FCoE Transformer sends the resulting Fibre Channel Frame to the Fibre Channel Device.
U.S. Patent No. 11,310,077 - "Transporting fibre channel over ethernet," Issued April 19, 2022
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’077 Patent addresses the same technical problem of costly and complex dual-network (LAN/SAN) data center architectures as the '591 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 16-21).
- The Patented Solution: The invention described in the ’077 Patent focuses on the specific method of operating the FCoE transformer itself (’077 Patent, Abstract). The method involves the transformer receiving an FCoE frame over a Layer 2 Ethernet switch, converting that FCoE frame back into a native Fibre Channel frame, and then transporting the Fibre Channel frame to its destination (Compl. ¶42). The claim details the structure of the FCoE frame, noting it includes SOF and EOF fields within a transport header used for the conversion process (Compl. ¶¶ 43-44).
- Technical Importance: This patented method provides the operational logic for a key component in a unified Ethernet-based storage network, enabling interoperability between Ethernet and Fibre Channel domains (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶97).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A method of operating an FCoE transformer.
- 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 includes an SOF field in an FCoE transport header for starting and encoding the fibre channel frame.
- The FCoE frame includes an EOF field in an FCoE transport header for ending and encoding the fibre channel frame.
- Transporting the resulting fibre channel frame.
U.S. Patent No. 11,303,473 - "Transporting fibre channel over ethernet," Issued April 12, 2022
Technology Synopsis
The ’473 Patent also addresses the unification of LAN and SAN networks by disclosing a method for operating an FCoE Host Bus Adapter (HBA) (’473 Patent, Abstract). The method comprises the HBA connecting to a Layer 2 Ethernet switch and sending an FCoE frame over that switch, with the frame containing specific Start-of-Frame (SOF) and End-of-Frame (EOF) fields within a transport header, which enables the transport of Fibre Channel data over an Ethernet fabric (Compl. ¶¶ 51-53).
Asserted Claims
Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶120).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that the Accused Products perform the claimed method of operating an FCoE HBA, connecting to a Layer 2 Ethernet switch, and sending FCoE frames that include the claimed SOF and EOF header fields (Compl. ¶¶ 115-119).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the Accused Products as Rackspace's "DCX® 8510 Backbones and Gen 5 Fibre Channel Technology products and services, and other products and services practicing the FCoE standard" (Compl. ¶56).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Products are described as networking hardware and services offered by Rackspace, a cloud computing company (Compl. ¶55). The complaint alleges that the data sheets for these products state they support Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) and Data Center Bridging (DCB) (Compl. ¶57). This functionality is the basis for the infringement allegations, as it enables the transport of Fibre Channel storage traffic over Ethernet networks. The complaint claims that Rackspace has realized "significant commercial gains" from the unauthorized use of this technology (Compl. ¶58).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
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 utilize a server that includes an FCoE HBA. | ¶61 | col. 7:22-24 |
| said FCoE HBA (40) including a Virtual Fibre Channel Port (42) and an Ethernet Interface (44); | The Accused Products' FCoE HBA includes a Virtual Fibre Channel Port and an Ethernet Interface. | ¶62 | col. 7:24-26 |
| providing a Layer 2 Ethernet Switch (24); | The Accused Products provide a Layer 2 Ethernet Switch. | ¶63 | col. 7:26-27 |
| providing an FCoE Transformer (46) including an Ethernet Interface (44) and a Fibre Channel Interface (48); | The Accused Products provide an FCoE Transformer that includes both Ethernet and Fibre Channel interfaces. | ¶64 | col. 8:65-col. 9:1 |
| providing a Fibre Channel Device (23); | The Accused Products provide a Fibre Channel Device. | ¶65 | col. 7:29-30 |
| said FCoE HBA (40) sending an FCoE Frame (93) to said FCoE Transformer (46) via said Layer 2 Ethernet Switch (24); | The Accused Products send an FCoE Frame to an FCoE Transformer through a Layer 2 Ethernet Switch. | ¶66 | col. 4:35-40 |
| said FCoE Frame (93) is conveyed in an Ethernet Frame (83) without utilizing an IP packet; | The Accused Products convey the FCoE Frame without using an IP packet. | ¶67 | col. 3:30-33 |
| said FCoE Transformer (46) converting said FCoE Frame (93) to a Fibre Channel Frame (71); | The Accused Products use the FCoE Transformer to convert the FCoE Frame into a Fibre Channel Frame. | ¶68 | col. 4:23-26 |
| said FCoE Frame (93) including an SOF field (124)... | The Accused Products utilize an FCoE Frame containing an SOF field for starting and encoding a Fibre Channel Frame. | ¶69 | col. 11:13-17 |
| said FCoE Frame (93) including an EOF field (126)... | The Accused Products utilize an FCoE Frame containing an EOF field for ending and encoding a Fibre Channel Frame. | ¶70 | col. 11:17-20 |
| said FCoE Transformer (46) sending said Fibre Channel Frame (71) to said Fibre Channel Device (23). | The Accused Products have an FCoE Transformer that sends the converted Fibre Channel Frame to a Fibre Channel Device. | ¶71 | col. 12:50-53 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Structural Scope: Claim 1 of the ’591 Patent recites a method involving a specific combination of five distinct components (Server, HBA, Switch, Transformer, Device). A primary question for the court will be whether Rackspace's accused system, as sold or operated, actually contains each of these discrete elements as claimed. The complaint alleges the Accused Products "provide" these components, but proof will be required to show they are present and operate together in the claimed manner.
- Technical Equivalence: The complaint alleges the Accused Products "provide an FCoE Transformer" (Compl. ¶64). The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused "DCX® 8510 Backbones" product contains a component that meets the patent's definition of an "FCoE Transformer" or if it achieves protocol translation through a technically different, and potentially non-infringing, architecture.
’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 receive an FCoE frame at the FCoE transformer via a layer 2 Ethernet switch. | ¶92 | col. 12:22-24 |
| converting, at the FCoE transformer, the FCoE frame to a fibre channel frame... | The Accused Products convert the FCoE frame to a fibre channel frame at the FCoE transformer. | ¶93 | col. 12:30-32 |
| ...wherein: the FCoE frame includes a SOF field included in an FCoE transport header... | The FCoE frame in the Accused Products includes a SOF field in a transport header used to start and encode the fibre channel frame. | ¶94 | col. 12:32-33 |
| the FCoE frame includes an EOF field included in an FCoE transport header... | The FCoE frame in the Accused Products includes an EOF field in a transport header used to end and encode the fibre channel frame. | ¶95 | col. 12:34-35 |
| and transporting the fibre channel frame. | The Accused Products transport the converted fibre channel frame. | ¶96 | col. 12:50-53 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Definitional Scope: The claim requires converting an "FCoE frame" that includes a specific "FCoE transport header." A key question will be whether the data packets processed by the Accused Products meet the precise structural definitions of these terms as laid out in the patent specification.
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's allegations for the ’077 Patent are highly conclusory (e.g., "The Accused Products convert..." at ¶93). The case may turn on what evidence Plaintiff can produce to demonstrate that the accused systems perform the specific, detailed steps of receiving and converting frames with the exact header structures required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "FCoE Transformer"
Context and Importance
This term names the central apparatus of the invention and appears in the asserted claims of both the '591 and '077 patents. The entire infringement theory rests on whether the Accused Products contain a component that falls within the proper construction of this term.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a functional definition, stating an "FCoE Transformer is the interface between the Ethernet and the Fibre Channel SAN network" and is "responsible for converting the FCoE protocol to the Fibre Channel FC-1 protocol and vise-versa" (’591 Patent, col. 4:22-26). This language could support a construction covering any component that performs this specific protocol translation function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also provides structural details, noting the transformer "has at least two ports; an Ethernet Port and a Fibre Channel port" (’591 Patent, col. 4:27-28) and performs specific tasks like "link and loop initialization" and translation of "primitive signals" (’591 Patent, col. 4:35-40). This may support a narrower construction requiring a distinct device with these specific structural and functional attributes.
The Term: "without utilizing an IP packet"
Context and Importance
This negative limitation in Claim 1 of the ’591 Patent is critical for distinguishing the invention from prior art IP-based storage protocols like iSCSI, which the complaint explicitly contrasts with the patented technology (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 67). Infringement hinges on whether the Accused Products operate strictly at Layer 2 as claimed.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states, "The present invention...does not require the use of IP packets to encapsulate the Fibre Channel data" (’591 Patent, col. 3:30-33). Plaintiff will likely argue this means the core data transport must not be encapsulated in IP, supporting a construction focused on the data plane.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that if any IP packets are used in the overall process, even for control or management functions related to the data transfer, the method is not performed "without utilizing an IP packet." However, the specification's explicit focus on data "encapsulation" may counter this broader interpretation.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges induced infringement for all three patents, stating that Rackspace "knowingly induces, aids, and directs others to use the Accused Products" (Compl. ¶¶ 81, 106, 129). The allegations are conclusory and cite "Rackspace's instructions" as evidence of specific intent but do not provide examples of such materials (Compl. ¶¶ 84, 109, 132).
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged for all three patents based on the assertion that Rackspace "knew or was willfully blind to the patented technology" and acted with "blatant disregard for AMV’s patent rights" (Compl. ¶¶ 76, 101, 124). The complaint does not allege any specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge, such as a notice letter.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of structural infringement: do Rackspace’s accused networking products, as sold and operated, embody the specific multi-component architecture recited in Claim 1 of the ’591 Patent—including a Server, HBA, Switch, Transformer, and Device—or do they achieve a similar FCoE function through a different, non-infringing design?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence can Plaintiff offer to demonstrate that the data packets in the accused systems conform to the specific "FCoE transport header" structure required by the ’077 and ’473 patents, and that they operate purely at Layer 2 "without utilizing an IP packet" as mandated by the ’591 patent?
- The case raises a significant question regarding laches and damages: given that all patents expired in October 2023 and the lawsuit was filed nearly two years later in June 2025, a critical issue will be how this delay impacts the calculation of past damages and the plausibility of the willfulness allegations.