DCT
1:25-cv-00963
Alpha Modus Ventures LLC v. Rackspace US Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Alpha Modus Ventures, LLC (North Carolina)
- Defendant: Rackspace US, Inc. (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Prince Lobel Tye LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00963, W.D. Tex., 11/14/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Rackspace is registered to do business in Texas, has regular and established places of business in the district, including its principal place of business and global headquarters, and has previously consented to venue in the district in prior litigation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud computing and managed storage services, which utilize networking hardware that practices the Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) standard, infringe three patents related to methods and systems for transporting Fibre Channel data over Ethernet networks.
- Technical Context: The patents address the historical challenge of data centers operating two separate, expensive, and complex networks: Ethernet-based Local Area Networks (LANs) for general communication and Fibre Channel-based Storage Area Networks (SANs) for high-performance storage access.
- Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit share a common priority date from a 2003 application. All three patents have expired as of October 21, 2023.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-10-21 | Patent Priority Date for ’591, ’077, and ’473 Patents |
| 2021-08-31 | U.S. Patent No. 11,108,591 Issues |
| 2022-04-12 | U.S. Patent No. 11,303,473 Issues |
| 2022-04-19 | U.S. Patent No. 11,310,077 Issues |
| 2023-10-21 | ’591, ’077, and ’473 Patents Expire |
| 2025-11-14 | Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,108,591 - “Transporting fibre channel over ethernet”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the problem of data centers maintaining two distinct networking infrastructures: a general-purpose LAN (typically Ethernet) and a special-purpose SAN (typically Fibre Channel) for storage (’591 Patent, col. 1:50-54). This "disjointed communication infrastructure" created significant support overhead, interoperability issues, and higher costs associated with Fibre Channel equipment (Compl. ¶19, ¶21; ’591 Patent, col. 2:16-24, 2:37-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an apparatus called a "Fibre Channel over Ethernet Transformer" (FCoE Transformer) that acts as an interface between an Ethernet network and a Fibre Channel SAN (’591 Patent, col. 3:57-4:1). This transformer converts Fibre Channel data frames and signals into Ethernet frames for transport over the LAN, and vice-versa, without using higher-level protocols like IP (’591 Patent, col. 3:32-36). This allows less expensive, standard Ethernet equipment to be used to provide SAN services (’591 Patent, Abstract). Figure 8 of the patent illustrates a server (32) with an FCoE Host Bus Adapter (40) communicating over an Ethernet switch (24) to an FCoE Transformer (46), which in turn connects to a Fibre Channel device (23).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to unify LAN and SAN technologies, reducing cost, complexity, and management overhead in data centers by leveraging the ubiquity and cost-effectiveness of Ethernet technology (Compl. ¶21; ’591 Patent, col. 2:55-58).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶80).
- Claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
- providing a Server including an FCoE Host Bus Adapter (HBA) with a Virtual Fibre Channel Port and an Ethernet Interface.
- providing a Layer 2 Ethernet Switch.
- providing an FCoE Transformer including an Ethernet Interface and a Fibre Channel Interface.
- providing a Fibre Channel Device.
- the FCoE HBA sending an FCoE Frame to the FCoE Transformer via the Layer 2 Ethernet Switch.
- the FCoE Frame is conveyed in an Ethernet Frame without utilizing an IP packet.
- the FCoE Transformer converting the FCoE Frame to a Fibre Channel Frame.
- the FCoE Frame including specific Start of Frame (SOF) and End of Frame (EOF) fields for providing and encoding characters used to start and end the Fibre Channel Frame.
- the FCoE Transformer sending the 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”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’077 Patent shares a common specification with the ’591 Patent and addresses the same problem of unifying separate and costly LAN and SAN network infrastructures in data centers (’077 Patent, col. 2:37-41).
- The Patented Solution: The patented solution is also centered on the FCoE Transformer, which translates between Fibre Channel and Ethernet protocols at the data link layer to enable a single, converged network (’077 Patent, col. 3:54-4:4). The claims of this patent focus on the method of operating the FCoE transformer itself.
- Technical Importance: As with the ’591 Patent, the technical approach aimed to reduce data center costs and complexity by replacing specialized Fibre Channel hardware with ubiquitous Ethernet components (’077 Patent, col. 2:55-58).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶105).
- Claim 1 is a method claim for operating a FCoE transformer, with the following essential elements:
- receiving, at the FCoE transformer, an FCoE frame via a layer 2 Ethernet switch.
- converting, at the FCoE transformer, the FCoE frame to a fibre channel frame.
- wherein the FCoE frame includes a SOF field in an FCoE transport header for providing and encoding a SOF character used to start the fibre channel frame.
- wherein the FCoE frame includes an EOF field in an FCoE transport header for providing and encoding an EOF character used to end the 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”
Technology Synopsis
- The ’473 Patent shares the same specification as the other patents-in-suit and is directed to the same core technology of unifying LAN and SAN networks. The invention uses FCoE to transport Fibre Channel data frames over standard Ethernet infrastructure, aiming to reduce cost and complexity (’473 Patent, Abstract, col. 2:55-58). The claims of this patent focus on the method of operating the FCoE Host Bus Adapter (HBA).
Asserted Claims
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶128).
Accused Features
- The accused features are Rackspace's cloud and storage services that utilize FCoE-capable hardware, such as the Brocade DCX® 8510 Backbone switches, to interconnect servers and storage arrays (Compl. ¶56).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Accused Products" are identified as Rackspace's systems and services that utilize the Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) standard, specifically including its use of "Brocade DCX® 8510 Backbone switches and related components—including Brocade FCOE10-24 blades and equivalent FCoE-enabled modules" (Compl. ¶56).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these products are part of Rackspace’s storage networking fabric used in its managed hosting and private cloud data centers (Compl. ¶56). This fabric interconnects servers and storage arrays using converged Ethernet and Fibre Channel protocols (Compl. ¶56). The functionality at issue is the use of the FCoE standard to "transmit encapsulated Fibre Channel frames over Ethernet transport" (Compl. ¶58).
- Rackspace is alleged to market and support these components and their FCoE functionality as part of its “Private Cloud Storage,” “Dedicated SAN,” and “Managed Storage” services (Compl. ¶58). The complaint alleges Rackspace's technical personnel and systems perform the accused steps, such as encapsulation and transmission of frames, as part of daily network operations (Compl. ¶61, ¶64).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 11,108,591 - Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a Server (32) including an FCoE HBA (40); said FCoE HBA (40) including a Virtual Fibre Channel Port (42) and an Ethernet Interface (44); | The Accused Products utilize a server with an FCoE HBA, which includes a Virtual Fibre Channel Port and an Ethernet Interface. | ¶69, ¶70 | col. 7:25-29 |
| providing a Layer 2 Ethernet Switch (24); | The Accused Products provide a Layer 2 Ethernet Switch. | ¶71 | col. 7:29-30 |
| providing an FCoE Transformer (46) including an Ethernet Interface (44) and a Fibre Channel Interface (48); | The Accused Products provide an FCoE Transformer (e.g., the Brocade switch) with both Ethernet and Fibre Channel interfaces. | ¶72 | col. 7:31-33 |
| providing a Fibre Channel Device (23); | The Accused Products provide a Fibre Channel Device (e.g., a storage array). | ¶73 | col. 7:33-34 |
| 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 from the HBA to the FCoE Transformer via a Layer 2 Ethernet Switch. | ¶74 | col. 7:35-38 |
| 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. | ¶75 | col. 7:39-41 |
| 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 to a Fibre Channel Frame. | ¶76 | col. 7:42-44 |
| said FCoE Frame (93) including an SOF field (124) for...start said Fibre Channel Frame (71)...and an EOF field (126) for...end said Fibre Channel Frame (71)... | The Accused Products have an FCoE Frame that includes SOF and EOF fields used to start and end the corresponding Fibre Channel Frame. | ¶77, ¶78 | col. 7:45-54 |
| 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 resulting Fibre Channel Frame to the Fibre Channel Device. | ¶79 | col. 7:55-57 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that Rackspace's systems, which use industry-standard Brocade hardware, constitute the patented "FCoE Transformer" and system. A central question may be whether the term "FCoE Transformer," as described and claimed in the patent, reads on a standard-compliant commercial switch, or if intrinsic evidence limits the term to a more specific apparatus distinct from such devices.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires that the FCoE frame is conveyed "without utilizing an IP packet." This raises the question of what evidence the complaint provides to demonstrate that Rackspace’s complex, multi-service network operates entirely at Layer 2 for the accused functionality, and whether any use of IP for management, configuration, or other ancillary services falls outside the scope of this negative limitation.
U.S. Patent No. 11,310,077 - Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method of operating a FCoE transformer including an Ethernet interface and a fibre channel interface... | The Accused Products embody a method of operating an FCoE transformer (e.g., the Brocade switch) that includes both interface types. | ¶98, ¶99 | col. 3:57-4:1 |
| receiving, at the the FCoE transformer, an FCoE frame via a layer 2 Ethernet switch; | The Accused Products receive, at the FCoE transformer, an FCoE frame via a Layer 2 Ethernet switch. | ¶100 | col. 12:23-25 |
| converting, at the FCoE transformer, the FCoE frame to a fibre channel frame... | The Accused Products convert, at the FCoE transformer, the FCoE frame to a fibre channel frame. | ¶101 | col. 12:25-28 |
| the FCoE frame includes a SOF field...for providing an SOF character used to start the fibre channel frame...and an EOF field...for providing an EOF character used to end the fibre channel frame... | In the Accused Products, the FCoE frame includes SOF and EOF fields in its transport header for starting and ending the converted fibre channel frame. | ¶102, ¶103 | col. 11:12-18 |
| transporting the fibre channel frame. | The Accused Products transport the resulting fibre channel frame. | ¶104 | col. 12:49-51 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Similar to the '591 Patent, a point of contention may be whether the operation of Rackspace’s standard FCoE-compliant hardware constitutes the specific method of "operating a FCoE transformer" as claimed, or if the claim scope is narrower.
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory hinges on Rackspace's systems performing the specific "receiving" and "converting" steps as recited. A question for the court will be how the sequence of operations within the accused Brocade hardware and its associated software maps to the discrete steps of the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"FCoE Transformer" ('591 Claim 1 and '077 Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is the central apparatus of the invention. Its construction will determine whether the accused Brocade switches and modules fall within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint equates it with commercial off-the-shelf hardware, while the patent describes it as a novel apparatus.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the term functionally as an "apparatus that transforms Fibre Channel data into Ethernet frames and visa-versa" and as "the interface between the Ethernet and the Fibre Channel SAN network" (’591 Patent, col. 3:57-4:2). This functional description could support an interpretation that covers any device performing this role, including the accused Brocade switches.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides specific implementation details, stating the transformer can be constructed using a network processor, FPGA, or a special purpose ASIC, and can be placed on an Ethernet NIC or in an Ethernet switch (’591 Patent, col. 4:60-5:3). This could support an argument that the "FCoE Transformer" is a specific component with these characteristics, rather than a fully-featured commercial network switch that incorporates FCoE functionality.
"without utilizing an IP packet" ('591 Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This negative limitation is critical for distinguishing the invention from prior "IP storage" solutions that operated at higher network layers. Infringement requires showing the absence of IP packet utilization for the claimed data conveyance.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (i.e., less restrictive on Plaintiff): The patent contrasts the invention with protocols that "run various storage protocols over TCP/IP" (’591 Patent, col. 2:60-62). This context suggests the limitation is meant to exclude solutions where the Fibre Channel data itself is encapsulated in TCP/IP, which may allow for IP to be used for other purposes in the network (e.g., management) without vitiating the element.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (i.e., more restrictive on Plaintiff): The specification repeatedly emphasizes that the invention operates at the "MAC layer (layer 2)" (’591 Patent, col. 3:34-36). This could support an interpretation that any utilization of IP packets in the path of the conveyed Ethernet frame, even for non-payload purposes, would cause the accused method to fall outside the claim scope.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
For all three patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (Compl. ¶89, ¶114, ¶137). The allegations state Rackspace "knowingly induces, aids, and directs others," including its customers and staff, to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner, and that its actions are "consistent with Rackspace's instructions" (Compl. ¶89, ¶92, ¶117, ¶140).
Willful Infringement
For all three patents, the complaint alleges that Rackspace "knew or was willfully blind to the patented technology" and acted with "blatant disregard for AMV's patent rights with an objectively high likelihood of infringement" (Compl. ¶84, ¶109, ¶132). The complaint further alleges that Rackspace has "made no efforts to avoid infringement" despite this alleged knowledge (Compl. ¶85, ¶110, ¶133).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the term "FCoE Transformer," as defined and used within the patent specification, read on a commercially available, industry-standard network switch like the accused Brocade DCX 8510, or is it limited to a more specific apparatus distinct from such general-purpose devices?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational fidelity: what evidence can be shown that Rackspace’s actual operation of its complex cloud infrastructure for paying customers performs every step of the asserted method claims, particularly the negative limitation in the ’591 Patent of conveying data "without utilizing an IP packet"?
- A central legal and factual question will be one of system versus method: how will the allegations that Rackspace "provides" the components of the claimed system (for the ’591 patent) be distinguished from the allegations that Rackspace itself "performs" or "directs" the steps of the claimed methods (for all three patents), especially in a multi-tenant cloud environment where customers may control certain operations?