DCT

1:25-cv-01147

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Home Depot Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01147, W.D. Tex., 07/23/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas based on Defendant’s regular and established places of business within the district, including an Austin Technology Center, multiple retail stores, and distribution centers. The complaint further alleges that Defendant employs a technical workforce in the district, including remote employees, who commit acts of infringement.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce platforms, mobile applications, and backend data processing infrastructure infringe seven patents related to distributed computing, load balancing, secure transactions, and parallel programming.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to the management of large-scale, distributed computing environments and secure digital transactions, which are foundational technologies for modern e-commerce, cloud infrastructure, and enterprise data operations.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had knowledge of certain patents-in-suit via notice letters dated December 23, 2024, and that it had knowledge of all patents-in-suit no later than July 22, 2025. These allegations form the basis for claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-03-13 ’582 Patent Priority Date
2003-05-21 ’080 Patent Priority Date
2004-12-30 ’282 Patent Priority Date
2005-03-08 ’167 Patent Priority Date
2007-02-21 ’844 Patent Priority Date
2007-08-14 ’582 Patent Issue Date
2007-10-30 ’841 Patent Priority Date
2007-10-30 ’584 Patent Priority Date
2008-01-01 ’167 Patent Issue Date
2010-05-04 ’080 Patent Issue Date
2010-05-18 ’282 Patent Issue Date
2010-10-26 ’841 Patent Issue Date
2012-12-11 ’844 Patent Issue Date
2012-12-17 Home Depot acquires BlackLocus, Inc. (approximate)
2013-01-08 ’584 Patent Issue Date
2024-12-23 Date of first notice letter to Home Depot
2025-07-22 Date of second notice letter to Home Depot
2025-07-23 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844 - "Root image caching and indexing for block-level distributed application management," issued December 11, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes inefficiencies in managing software for large clusters of computers, where creating and updating a unique "boot image" for each machine consumes significant network bandwidth, storage, and time. It also notes the redundancy of each machine independently performing tasks like file system indexing on common data ('844 Patent, col. 1:29-67, col. 2:1-13).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a common, read-only "root image" (e.g., a base operating system) is stored centrally, and each computer ("compute node") only stores its unique modifications in a separate "leaf image." A component then merges the shared root image and the specific leaf image "on the fly" at the block level, giving each node the appearance of having a complete, customized environment without duplicating the common data ('844 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-51). The solution also includes caching frequently accessed blocks from the root image and sharing indexing results to further improve performance ('844 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This approach is designed to reduce storage and network overhead in large-scale computing environments, making it faster to deploy, boot, and update many machines simultaneously (Compl. ¶77).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead referring to an external exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶85). Independent claim 1 of the patent includes the following essential elements:

  • A system for providing data to a plurality of compute nodes.
  • A first storage unit configured to store blocks of a root image.
  • A plurality of second storage units configured to store leaf images for respective compute nodes, where the leaf images contain only new data blocks and changes to the root image.
  • A cache configured to cache blocks of the root image that were previously accessed by at least one compute node.

The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, which may include dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,721,282 - "Block-Level I/O Subsystem for Distributed Application Environment Management," issued May 18, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of deploying and managing application environments across numerous computers in a cluster efficiently. The goal is to avoid the significant overhead associated with creating and maintaining full, independent copies of the software for every machine ('282 Patent, col. 1:21-43).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "union block device" (UBD) that functions as a low-level I/O subsystem. This UBD acts as an interface between a compute node and two distinct storage areas: one holding a shared "root image" and another holding a node-specific "leaf image." By merging data from both sources at the block level, the UBD presents a complete, unified application environment to the compute node's operating system ('282 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-28).
  • Technical Importance: By operating at the block level rather than the file-system level, the described system is designed to be independent of any particular operating system, offering a flexible method for managing heterogeneous computing environments (Compl. ¶93; '282 Patent, col. 2:9-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead referring to an external exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶101). Independent claim 1 of the patent includes the following essential elements:

  • A system for distributing an application environment, comprising a compute node, a first storage unit, a second storage unit, and a union block device.
  • The first storage unit stores blocks of a root image.
  • The second storage unit stores a leaf image containing new data and changes.
  • The union block device interfaces between the node and storage units.
  • The union block device creates the application environment by merging blocks from the root and leaf images.
  • The union block device handles write requests for a "sector X" by creating an appropriate persistent mapping for it.

The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, which may include dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,314,167 - "Method and apparatus for providing secure identification, verification and authorization," issued January 1, 2008

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for secure transactions using a portable device. The device captures an image containing embedded transaction information (e.g., a barcode), verifies the user via local input (such as a PIN), and then generates an output (e.g., an authorization code or digital signature) based on the captured information and pre-stored data to complete the transaction securely ('167 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims, referring to an external exhibit (Compl. ¶117).
  • Accused Features: The allegations appear directed at secure transaction functionalities within Home Depot's systems, such as those used in the Home Depot Mobile App for purchases and its associated backend payment processing systems (Compl. ¶55, ¶59).

U.S. Patent No. 7,257,582 - "Load Balancing with Shared Data," issued August 14, 2007

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a method for parallel processing where the input for a task is logically divided into multiple partitions. These partitions are then distributed among a plurality of processors, with the workload assigned to each processor being proportional to its processing capacity, enabling efficient load balancing in a heterogeneous computing environment ('582 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims, referring to an external exhibit (Compl. ¶133).
  • Accused Features: The allegations target Home Depot's backend infrastructure, which allegedly uses load balancing and distributed processing for its e-commerce platform and "Big Data analysis" operations (Compl. ¶54, ¶59).

U.S. Patent No. 7,712,080 - "Systems and Methods for Parallel Distributed Programming," issued May 4, 2010

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a programming model for parallel distributed systems. The model uses "distributed shared variables" that exist across multiple memories and "self-migrating threads" that can move from one processor to another to access the data they need, aiming to simplify the development of distributed applications ('080 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims, referring to an external exhibit (Compl. ¶149).
  • Accused Features: Infringement allegations appear to target Home Depot's use of modern distributed computing frameworks like Kubernetes and Spark, which manage application workloads and data across clusters of machines (Compl. ¶59).

U.S. Patent No. 7,822,841 and U.S. Patent No. 8,352,584, related to "Hosting Multiple, Customized Computing Clusters," issued October 26, 2010 and January 8, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent family describes a system for hosting multiple, distinct computing clusters for different clients. The system includes features for customizing each cluster's configuration, monitoring its operational status, and using gateways to control client access and isolate network traffic between the different clusters ('841 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims, referring to external exhibits (Compl. ¶165, ¶181).
  • Accused Features: These allegations map to Home Depot's backend infrastructure, which allegedly uses technologies like Kubernetes to create and manage multiple customized computing environments (clusters or containers) for its various e-commerce and data analysis services (Compl. ¶7, ¶59).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint broadly identifies the "Accused Products and Services" (Compl. ¶15). More specifically, it names the "Home Depot Mobile App" and underlying backend infrastructure technologies, including Kubernetes, Docker, Spark, and systems for "Big Data analysis" and "Secure Transactions" (Compl. ¶23, ¶54, ¶59).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused backend systems support Home Depot’s primary business operations, including its e-commerce channels like HomeDepot.com and its data analytics capabilities, which were enhanced through the acquisition of BlackLocus (Compl. ¶7). These systems are allegedly used for pricing, competitive intelligence, and managing large-scale data processing with technologies such as Kubernetes and Spark (Compl. ¶7, ¶59).
  • The Home Depot Mobile App provides customers with features such as product search, in-store product location, barcode scanning, order tracking, and online purchasing (Compl. ¶24, ¶55). A promotional image in the complaint depicts the mobile app's user interface and highlights features including a barcode scanner and voice search (Compl. p. 10). The accused services are central to Home Depot's retail and e-commerce strategy.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As the complaint incorporates claim charts by reference to external exhibits not provided with the filing, a tabular analysis is not possible. The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

’844 and ’282 Patents Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Home Depot's use of modern containerization and orchestration technologies like Docker and Kubernetes for managing its backend systems infringes the ’844 and ’282 patents (Compl. ¶59, ¶77, ¶93). The theory suggests these platforms create distributed application environments analogous to the patents' "root-leaf" model. A standard container base image could be argued to function as the "root image," while individual running containers with their unique data represent the "leaf images." The complaint suggests that the functionality of technologies that merge a base image with a writable layer performs the function of the claimed block-level merging to create a unique application environment for a service (Compl. ¶93). The caching and indexing claims of the ’844 Patent may be mapped to performance optimization features within these infrastructure platforms.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether modern container orchestration systems (e.g., Kubernetes) and container runtimes (e.g., Docker), which often operate at the file-system level, fall within the scope of claims directed to a "block-level" I/O subsystem and the management of "boot images." The defense could argue that technologies like layered file systems operate at a different and higher level of abstraction than what is described and claimed in the patents.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations are high-level. A key question for the court will be what evidence exists that Home Depot’s systems perform the specific functions recited in the claims, such as the "caching blocks of the root image" as required by the ’844 Patent or the detailed "persistent mapping for sector X" write operation claimed in the ’282 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "root image" (from the ’844 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is fundamental to the infringement case for the '844 and '282 patents. The plaintiff's theory may depend on construing this term broadly to cover modern software artifacts like a Docker base image, while the defendant may argue for a narrower construction limited to the bootable operating system images described in the patent's specification.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the general term "root image" without explicitly limiting it to a bootable OS, potentially allowing it to encompass any common set of data blocks used as a base for multiple instances (’844 Patent, col. 12:5-7).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background and detailed description repeatedly frame the invention in the context of solving problems with "boot images," "master boot images," and the deployment of an "Operating System (OS)" to compute nodes, which may support a narrower definition tied to that specific context (’844 Patent, col. 1:29-45).

The Term: "union block device" (from the ’282 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the '282 patent hinges on mapping this claimed element to components within Home Depot's software infrastructure. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a specific type of low-level driver operating below the file system, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover software-based, file-system-level layering technologies.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "device" in patent law can refer to a software component, and the core claimed function is "interfacing" to "create the application environment by merging the blocks," which could be performed in software at various levels of abstraction (’282 Patent, col. 7:25-33).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the UBD as a "low-level driver" that operates "below the file system" and is "concerned merely with the blocks of data themselves, rather than files they form," which could be used to argue against infringement by technologies that operate at the file-system level (’282 Patent, col. 4:46-52).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. It alleges inducement based on Home Depot encouraging and instructing partners, vendors, and customers to use the accused systems (e.g., Compl. ¶81). It alleges contributory infringement by asserting that Home Depot provides software and technologies that are not staple articles of commerce and are especially adapted for infringement (e.g., Compl. ¶83).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge from notice letters dated December 23, 2024, and July 22, 2025. The complaint claims Home Depot knew or was "willfully blind" to the existence of the patents and continued its infringing conduct (e.g., Compl. ¶80).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms like "root image" and "union block device," rooted in the patent specifications' context of block-level operating system deployment for hardware nodes, be construed to cover modern, higher-level abstractions like container base images and layered file systems used in Home Depot’s cloud-native infrastructure?
  • The case will likely involve a key question of technological translation: does the functionality of Home Depot's accused infrastructure, built with modern tools like Kubernetes and Docker, perform functions that are technically equivalent to the specific methods described and claimed in the asserted patents, many of which date to an earlier era of distributed computing?
  • A third central question will be one of evidentiary specificity: faced with broad allegations spanning seven patents and a wide array of complex backend services, the proceedings will likely focus on whether the plaintiff can produce specific, technical evidence mapping individual claim limitations onto the actual operation of discrete components within Home Depot's accused systems.