DCT
6:20-cv-00479
WSOU Investments LLC v. Dell Tech Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development (Delaware)
- Defendant: Dell Technologies Inc. (Delaware), Dell Inc. (Delaware), and EMC Corporation (Massachusetts)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Etheridge Law Group, PLLC; Law Firm of Walt, Fair PLLC
- Case Identification: 6:20-cv-00479, W.D. Tex., 10/19/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as each defendant has established places of business in the Western District of Texas, is registered to do business in Texas, and has transacted business and committed alleged acts of infringement in the District.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Dell OpenManage Enterprise network management software infringes a patent related to efficient, reactive monitoring of network resources.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for managing large computer networks by reducing the volume of monitoring-related data traffic to improve overall system performance and scalability.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff filed a prior suit against the same defendants in May 2020 asserting the same patent and accused products, which was subsequently dismissed. Plaintiff leverages this prior action to assert that Defendants have had knowledge of the patent-in-suit and their alleged infringement since at least May 2020.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-03-21 | U.S. Patent No. 8,402,129 Priority Date |
| 2013-03-19 | U.S. Patent No. 8,402,129 Issue Date |
| 2020-05-XX | Prior infringement suit filed by Plaintiff |
| 2020-10-19 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,402,129 - Method and Apparatus for Efficient Reactive Monitoring
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,402,129, issued March 19, 2013.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In large, complex computer networks, continuous monitoring of all system parameters by a central management station generates a high volume of data traffic, which can negatively impact the performance of the managed network itself (’129 Patent, col. 1:15-28). Traditional periodic polling is often inefficient for this purpose.
- The Patented Solution: The patent proposes a more efficient "reactive" monitoring system that combines asynchronous event reporting with aperiodic polling (’129 Patent, col. 2:15-18). Individual network devices (nodes) monitor their own resource usage. A node sends a report to a central manager only when a local condition is met, such as its resource usage exceeding a budget or its rate of change becoming too high (’129 Patent, col. 2:20-28, 35-40). The central manager, upon receiving such a report, can then initiate a "global poll" of other nodes to obtain a complete system status, thereby avoiding constant, traffic-heavy polling of the entire network (’129 Patent, col. 2:28-32).
- Technical Importance: This hybrid approach was designed to make network management more scalable and efficient, allowing administrators to detect alarm conditions without the performance degradation associated with continuous, comprehensive polling of large numbers of network elements (’129 Patent, col. 1:24-28).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 3 (Compl. ¶20).
- Independent Claim 3 recites a method with the following essential elements:
- (a) monitoring usage of a resource in a node to determine when a rate of change of the usage exceeds a first pre-determined threshold;
- (b) reporting to a management station when the rate of change of the usage exceeds the threshold; and
- (c) initiating a poll of resources in the nodes by the management station in response to the reporting or a time interval being exceeded.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Dell EMC OpenManage Enterprise (OME) and Dell OpenManage Network Manager (OMNM) applications (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Accused Products as infrastructure management consoles for monitoring and managing hardware devices such as servers, storage arrays, and network switches (Compl. ¶¶13-14).
- The products provide a centralized user interface for administrators to monitor systems, identify problems, and receive proactive alerts to reduce the risk of downtime (Compl. ¶16). Functionality includes monitoring specific device resources, such as the "system board current," and generating alerts when usage exceeds a predefined warning threshold (Compl. ¶17). The complaint also alleges the products perform "health check polling" on a regular, user-defined time interval, which operates "irrespective of any alerts received" (Compl. ¶¶18-19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’129 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 3) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) monitoring usage of the resource in a node to determine when a rate of change of the usage exceeds a first pre-determined threshold; | Dell OME monitors resources of a device, for example the "system board current," and generates an alert when the usage "reaches beyond the upper warning threshold." | ¶17 | col. 2:35-42 |
| (b) reporting to a management station of the network when the rate of change of the usage exceeds said first predetermined threshold; and | When a monitored resource exceeds its threshold, an alert (e.g., MESSAGE ID - AMP0302) is generated and displayed in the management console. This is described in a screenshot showing alert definitions for various system health events. | ¶¶16-17, p. 6 | col. 2:35-42 |
| (c) initiating a poll of resources in the nodes of the network by the management station in response to reporting from the node or a time interval being exceeded. | Dell OME provides for a "Global health task" that polls the health of devices at a user-defined time interval (e.g., hourly). This polling is alleged to occur irrespective of any alerts. A screenshot shows the user interface for setting this "Default Health check poll interval." | ¶¶18-19, p. 7 | col. 10:4-12 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: Claim 3(a) requires monitoring the "rate of change" of resource usage. The complaint alleges the Accused Products monitor whether a resource value "reaches beyond the upper warning threshold" (Compl. ¶17). A key technical question for the court will be whether monitoring a resource's absolute value against a threshold constitutes monitoring its "rate of change." The patent specification describes rate-based and value-based monitoring as distinct techniques (’129 Patent, Figs. 2, 4).
- Scope Questions: Claim 3(c) requires polling to be initiated "in response to reporting from the node or a time interval being exceeded." The complaint alleges the accused polling occurs "irrespective of any alerts received" (Compl. ¶18). This raises the question of whether the accused polling functionality, which appears to be purely time-based, satisfies the "in response to" limitation, particularly as it relates to the first, event-based trigger. However, the disjunctive "or" may allow Plaintiff to argue that satisfying only the time-interval-based trigger is sufficient for infringement.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "rate of change of the usage"
Context and Importance: The construction of this term is central to the dispute. The complaint’s infringement theory relies on allegations of monitoring a resource value against a threshold (Compl. ¶17), not its rate of change. The defense may argue that "rate of change" has a specific technical meaning (e.g., a derivative over time) that is not met by the accused functionality.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that a sudden spike in a resource's value that crosses a threshold is an implicit measurement of a high rate of change, consistent with the patent's overall goal of detecting "anomalous behavior" (’129 Patent, col. 1:42).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly distinguishes between a "simple value node process" (Fig. 2) and a "simple rate node process" (Fig. 4), with the latter checking if
Xi(t) - Xi(t-1) ≥ δ. Claim 3 uses the "rate of change" language associated with the rate-based embodiment, suggesting the term was intended to have its more specific, technical meaning rather than being interchangeable with a value threshold.
The Term: "in response to"
Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges the accused polling occurs "irrespective of any alerts" (Compl. ¶18), which appears to contradict the "in response to reporting" part of claim 3(c). The viability of the infringement allegation may depend on the claim’s alternative trigger: "or a time interval being exceeded."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of the disjunctive "or" suggests two independent triggers. The patent describes a centralized process that can be triggered when a report is received or when a scheduled time
tmis reached (’129 Patent, Fig. 5, element 505). This supports an interpretation where a purely time-based poll, independent of any event report, satisfies the limitation. - Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the phrase "in response to" governs the entire clause, implying a reactive system, and that a pre-scheduled, independent polling task is not truly "in response to" a time interval in the same reactive sense as it would be to an event report. This interpretation appears less supported by the claim language and specification.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of the disjunctive "or" suggests two independent triggers. The patent describes a centralized process that can be triggered when a report is received or when a scheduled time
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement based on Defendants' actions of advertising, providing product descriptions, and distributing operating manuals that allegedly instruct end users on how to configure and use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶24).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges that Defendants have had "notice and actual or constructive knowledge" of the ’129 Patent and their alleged infringement since at least May 2020, as a result of a prior, dismissed lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶23).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can monitoring whether a resource value crosses a static threshold, as alleged in the complaint, be construed to meet the explicit claim requirement of monitoring a "rate of change"? The patent's own text appears to treat these as distinct methodologies, presenting a significant hurdle for the infringement theory.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused system's time-based health poll, which the complaint alleges operates "irrespective of" event alerts, satisfy the limitation that polling is initiated "in response to ... a time interval being exceeded"? While the complaint's own phrasing creates tension, the disjunctive "or" in the claim may provide a sufficient basis for this part of the infringement allegation to proceed.