DCT

6:20-cv-00481

WSOU Investments LLC v. Dell Tech Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:20-cv-00481, W.D. Tex., 11/12/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because each defendant has established places of business in the district, is registered to do business in Texas, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ cloud and data center solutions, which incorporate VMware virtualization software and Dell hardware, infringe a patent related to methods for optimizing the placement of compute resources relative to data resources to reduce latency.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses performance bottlenecks in cloud computing by using algorithmic methods to intelligently assign virtual machines or other compute nodes to data nodes based on network costs, such as latency.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff filed a prior suit in May 2020 asserting the same patent against the same products, which was subsequently dismissed. This prior action is cited as the basis for Defendants' pre-suit knowledge of the patent. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the asserted patent was the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR), IPR2021-00572, which concluded on February 2, 2023, with the cancellation of claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13, 14, and 18-21, including the sole independent claim asserted in this complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-10-25 ’800 Patent Priority Date
2015-10-20 ’800 Patent Issue Date
2018-11-01 Approximate launch of VMware vSphere 6.7
2020-05-01 Prior infringement suit filed by Plaintiff (approximate date)
2020-11-12 Complaint Filing Date
2021-02-22 IPR Petition Filed against ’800 Patent (IPR2021-00572)
2023-02-02 IPR Certificate Issued, Cancelling Asserted Claim 1 of ’800 Patent

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,164,800 - "Optimizing Latencies in Cloud Systems by Intelligent Compute Node Placement," issued October 20, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the issue of communication latency in distributed cloud architectures where compute resources (e.g., virtual machines) may be geographically or network-distant from the data they need to process, which can degrade application performance (’800 Patent, col. 1:31-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and a "cloud controller" that treats the placement of compute nodes as a formal optimization problem. The system models the available compute nodes and data nodes as a bipartite graph, with the "edges" between them having associated costs, such as network latency (’800 Patent, col. 6:28-54). An algorithm is then applied to this graph to determine an optimal set of assignments that achieves a specific "assignment objective," such as minimizing the total or maximum latency across the system (’800 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:35-44).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides a systematic, objective-driven method for resource allocation in complex cloud environments, contrasting with less sophisticated placement strategies.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (’800 Patent, Compl. ¶26).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • A method performed by a cloud controller for assigning compute nodes to data nodes.
    • Obtaining a set of compute nodes, data nodes, and edges between them.
    • Determining an assignment objective to be achieved.
    • Assigning a compute node to a data node based on the objective and a plurality of costs associated with the edges.
    • The assignment objective is based on a latency cost, and the assignment is made by applying an algorithm.
  • The complaint's prayer for relief seeks judgment on "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert others (Compl., p. 16).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Defendants' "cloud-related solutions," which include Dell's PowerEdge servers and VxRail appliances incorporating VMware's VeloCloud solutions and vSphere software (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Accused Products are used to build and manage hybrid cloud environments (Compl. ¶16). Key accused features include VMware vSphere's Distributed Resource Scheduler (DRS) and Storage DRS, which are alleged to manage workloads and resources within clusters of hosts and datastores (Compl. ¶¶17, 19). Storage DRS is specifically identified as a component responsible for "optimal storage placement and load balancing recommendations" that can be based on metrics including "device latency" (Compl. ¶¶22, 24). The complaint also points to the use of VMware VMotion to migrate running virtual machines between physical servers to optimize resources (Compl. ¶25).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'800 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method performed by a cloud controller for assigning compute nodes to data nodes... The Accused Products, including VMware vSphere managed by a vCenter Server, allegedly function as a cloud controller to manage and administer data centers as a unified operating environment (Compl. ¶16). ¶16, ¶20 col. 5:16-18
obtaining... a set of compute nodes, a set of data nodes, and a set of edges between compute nodes and data nodes; A vSphere cluster is alleged to be a collection of hosts (compute nodes), datastores (data nodes), and links between them, which are managed by a vCenter Server (Compl. ¶¶20-21). ¶20, ¶21 col. 6:28-34
determining an assignment objective to be achieved... Storage DRS allegedly allows users to manage resources to achieve objectives, including "space load balancing, I/O load balancing, and placement for virtual disks." This is depicted in a screenshot from VMware documentation (Compl. ¶22). ¶22 col. 7:10-14
assigning a compute node... to a data node... based on the assignment objective and a plurality of costs associated with the set of edges; Storage DRS is alleged to allocate resources, including placement for VMs and VMDKs, using a variety of metrics. The complaint alleges that algorithms, such as VMotion, are applied to migrate and optimize these resources (Compl. ¶25). A screenshot describes how VMotion enables live migration to create a self-optimizing data center (Compl. ¶25). ¶24, ¶25 col. 8:35-44
wherein the assignment objective is based on a latency cost used in obtaining a set of assignments by applying an algorithm. The complaint alleges that Storage DRS allocates resources using metrics that include "device latency" (Compl. ¶24). A supporting screenshot from VMware's documentation states that vSphere Storage I/O Control monitors "device latency" to allocate I/O resources when congestion occurs (Compl. p. 12). ¶24 col. 7:15-18

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A potential dispute concerns whether the distributed management architecture of the Accused Products, such as a vCenter Server managing a cluster, constitutes the "cloud controller" recited in the claim. The defense may argue that the patent envisions a more centralized, monolithic controller than the system embodied in the accused vSphere environment.
  • Technical Questions: A central technical question is whether the accused Storage DRS and DRS functionalities perform the specific algorithmic process claimed. The patent describes applying a formal assignment algorithm to a cost-weighted graph to find an optimal solution. The complaint alleges the Accused Products use "metrics" like latency and "algorithms" like VMotion, but it raises the question of whether this functionality is equivalent to the patent's more structured, mathematical optimization process or is instead a set of heuristics and rule-based balancing actions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "cloud controller"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the acting entity of the claimed method. Its construction will be critical in determining whether the architecture of the Accused Products, which involves components like vCenter Server managing a cluster, falls within the claim's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's depiction (e.g., FIG. 1, item 120) suggests a single entity, whereas the accused system is a more distributed management plane.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a general definition of the controller as "a device configured to control the operations of a networked cloud" (’800 Patent, col. 5:16-18), which could arguably encompass a logically unified but physically distributed system.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent states that the controller "may reside at a data center... or may reside elsewhere" (’800 Patent, col. 5:29-31) and depicts it as a discrete component in Figure 1, which may support a narrower construction limited to a single device or server.

  • The Term: "applying an algorithm"

    • Context and Importance: This term is at the heart of the patented solution. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused DRS/Storage DRS functionality, which balances resources based on various metrics, constitutes "applying an algorithm" in the manner claimed.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term "algorithm" generally in the context of achieving an "assignment objective" (’800 Patent, col. 2:6-8), which a plaintiff might argue covers any automated, rule-based process for resource placement, including the heuristics used by VMware DRS.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to specific classes of formal algorithms, such as an "assignment algorithm" like the "Hungarian algorithm" or a "binary search and threshold algorithm" that operates on a cost-based graph to find an "optimum" solution (’800 Patent, col. 8:66-9:4; col. 9:5-9). This suggests the term requires a more rigorous, mathematical optimization process than the general workload balancing alleged in the complaint.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement based on Defendants' "advertising and promoting the use of the Accused Products" and providing "product descriptions, operating manuals, and other instructions on how to implement and configure" them (Compl. ¶30). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the products are "especially made or adapted for infringing" and have "no substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶31).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' knowledge of the ’800 Patent since at least May 2020, stemming from a prior lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff that was later dismissed (Compl. ¶29).

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

  1. Claim Validity: A threshold, and likely dispositive, issue is the impact of the Inter Partes Review (IPR2021-00572), which resulted in the cancellation of every claim asserted or implicated by the complaint. While the complaint was filed before the IPR's conclusion, the subsequent cancellation of Claim 1 raises the fundamental question of whether the Plaintiff's infringement cause of action remains viable.
  2. Definitional Scope: Assuming the claim were valid, a core issue would be one of definitional scope: does the accused vSphere management architecture, with its distributed components like vCenter Server and ESXi hosts, meet the definition of the singular "cloud controller" described in the patent?
  3. Functional Equivalence: A key evidentiary question would be one of functional equivalence: do the accused DRS and Storage DRS features, which use a combination of metrics and heuristics for workload balancing, perform the specific, mathematically-grounded method of "applying an algorithm" to a cost-weighted graph to find an optimal assignment, as required by Claim 1?