DCT

6:20-cv-01152

Daedalus Blue LLC v. M

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:20-cv-01152, W.D. Tex., 12/16/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Microsoft has committed acts of infringement in the district, conducts business in the district, and maintains corporate offices in Austin and San Antonio.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud computing and database products, including Microsoft Azure and Microsoft SQL Server, infringe five patents originally assigned to IBM related to data replication, virtual machine management, network security, and data storage policies.
  • Technical Context: The patents address foundational technologies in cloud computing and large-scale data management, a market central to modern enterprise IT infrastructure.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents have been licensed to other major technology companies, including Amazon Web Services and Oracle Corporation. Public records associated with the asserted patents indicate that subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the asserted claims of two of the five patents-in-suit were cancelled in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Specifically, all asserted claims of the '612 and '132 patents were found unpatentable and cancelled, which may substantially narrow the scope of the present litigation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-02-07 U.S. Patent No. 7,177,886 Priority Date
2003-03-14 U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132 Priority Date
2003-11-14 U.S. Patent No. 7,437,730 Priority Date
2007-01-03 U.S. Patent No. 8,381,209 Priority Date
2007-02-13 U.S. Patent No. 7,177,886 Issues
2008-10-14 U.S. Patent No. 7,437,730 Issues
2009-01-01 Microsoft launches Windows Azure (approximate date)
2010-04-14 U.S. Patent No. 8,572,612 Priority Date
2013-02-19 U.S. Patent No. 8,381,209 Issues
2013-10-29 U.S. Patent No. 8,572,612 Issues
2014-03-11 U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132 Issues
2020-12-16 Complaint Filed
2021-05-07 IPR petitions filed against the '612 and '132 patents
2024-08-22 IPR Certificate issues cancelling asserted claims of '132 Patent
2024-10-21 IPR Certificate issues cancelling asserted claims of '612 Patent

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,177,886 - "Apparatus and Method for Coordinating Logical Data Replication with Highly Available Data Replication," issued February 13, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the shortcomings of existing database replication methods. Synchronous replication, while reliable, introduces significant delays and cost, while asynchronous replication is faster but risks data inconsistencies if the primary database server fails before all updates are propagated. (’886 Patent, col. 1:55-2:41; Compl. ¶17-18).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a hybrid system that combines high-availability mirroring with asynchronous replication. A "critical database server" includes a primary server and a secondary "mirror" server. A transaction is first mirrored to the secondary server, which then generates an "acknowledgment signal." A separate "data replicator" component waits to receive this acknowledgment signal before it replicates the transaction to other remote database servers. This ensures that any transaction distributed to the wider system has already been safely backed up. (’886 Patent, col. 2:56-67, Fig. 1; Compl. ¶19).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide the reliability of synchronous systems (fail-safe recovery) with the flexibility and performance of asynchronous systems, which was a critical challenge in scaling distributed databases. (Compl. ¶19).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶75).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A critical database server with a primary server and a secondary server that mirrors the primary.
    • The secondary server generates an acknowledgment signal after a transaction is mirrored.
    • A mirroring component transfers database log file entries from the primary to the secondary.
    • A plurality of other servers, each supporting database instances.
    • A data replicator that communicates with the critical server and the other servers to replicate the transaction, where the replication is "responsive to the acknowledgment signal."

U.S. Patent No. 7,437,730 - "System and Method for Providing a Scalable On Demand Hosting System," issued October 14, 2008

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes inefficiencies in data center hosting architectures. "Dedicated hosting," where servers are statically assigned to customers based on peak load, results in low average server utilization. Early attempts at dynamic server assignment were slow and lacked the fine-grain control needed to optimize workload distribution. (’730 Patent, col. 1:13-39; Compl. ¶23-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system using a plurality of virtual machines (VMs) across multiple physical servers to handle multiple workloads. A "resource management logic" distributes server resources (CPU, bandwidth, etc.) to each VM based on current and predicted needs. The system dynamically adjusts the "fractions" of each workload handled by the plurality of VMs to optimize resource utilization across the entire server pool, shifting work away from overloaded servers. (’730 Patent, col. 2:9-56; Compl. ¶25, 27).
  • Technical Importance: This system enabled finer-grained, dynamic control over workload distribution in a virtualized environment, improving server efficiency beyond what was possible with static or coarse dynamic assignment. (Compl. ¶28).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶94).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A plurality of servers utilized by multiple workloads.
    • A plurality of virtual machines at each server, where VMs at each server serve a different workload.
    • Resource management logic to distribute server resources to the VMs based on current and predicted needs.
    • Whereby each workload is distributed across the servers, with "fractions of each of the multiple workloads" handled by the plurality of VMs.
    • Whereby these "fractions... can by dynamically adjusted to provide for optimization."

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,381,209

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,381,209, “Moveable Access Control List (ACL) Mechanisms for Hypervisors and Virtual Machines and Virtual Port Firewalls,” issued February 19, 2013.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the difficulty of maintaining network security when migrating a virtual machine (VM) from one physical hardware device to another. The invention proposes controlling network security by "enforcing network security and routing at a hypervisor layer" through dynamic updating of routing controls initiated by the migration. (Compl. ¶31-34).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1. (Compl. ¶111).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Microsoft’s Azure Site Recovery service when used with Network Security Groups (NSGs) of infringing the ’209 Patent. (Compl. ¶111-112).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,572,612

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,572,612, “Autonomic Scaling of Virtual Machines in a Cloud Computing Environment,” issued October 29, 2013.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of manually scaling VM instances in a cloud environment, which is slow and can lead to poor service quality. The patented solution involves a cloud operating system that monitors operating characteristics (e.g., CPU load) of a VM and "autonomically" deploys additional VM instances when a threshold is exceeded, or terminates them when the load falls below a second threshold. (Compl. ¶38-41).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1. (Compl. ¶123).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Microsoft’s Azure Virtual Machine Scale Sets (VMSS) products of infringing the ’612 Patent. (Compl. ¶123).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132, “System, Method, and Apparatus for Policy-Based Data Management,” issued March 11, 2014.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses problems in distributed storage systems, including resource saturation and a lack of methods for prioritizing operations or automatically selecting appropriate storage tiers. The invention describes a method where a "policy set" containing at least one "service class rule" is applied to the attributes of a file to automatically assign it a service class, which then dictates how operations on that file are handled. (Compl. ¶46-47).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 15. (Compl. ¶147).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Microsoft’s Azure Blob Storage of infringing the ’132 Patent. (Compl. ¶147-148).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint accuses Microsoft SQL Server (’886 Patent) and Microsoft Azure Infrastructure-as-a-Service ("IaaS") and its related components (’730, ’209, ’612, ’132 Patents). (Compl. ¶75, 94, 111, 123, 147).

Functionality and Market Context

  • Microsoft SQL Server: The complaint focuses on two features: "Database Mirroring" and "Log Shipping." Database Mirroring is described as a high-availability solution that maintains a standby "mirror" server that mirrors the transaction logs of a "principal" server. Log Shipping is described as a disaster-recovery solution that sends transaction log backups from a primary server to one or more secondary servers. The complaint alleges these two features can work together. (Compl. ¶56-58, 76). The complaint provides a diagram from Microsoft documentation illustrating a combined mirroring and log shipping architecture. (Compl. ¶58, p. 28).
  • Microsoft Azure IaaS: This is Microsoft's cloud computing platform, which consists of globally distributed datacenters containing physical servers that host numerous VMs. The complaint alleges that workloads are spread across VMs to gain performance and redundancy, using features like "Availability Sets." The "Azure Resource Manager" is identified as the deployment and management service that distributes server resources to the VMs. (Compl. ¶60-62, 95-98). The complaint includes a diagram showing an N-Tier application architecture on Azure, which depicts multiple workloads distributed across servers. (Compl. ¶95, p. 40).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 7,177,886 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a critical database server including a primary server supporting a primary database instance and a secondary server supporting a secondary database instance that mirrors the primary database instance... Microsoft SQL Server is alleged to be a "critical database server" that includes a "principal server" (primary) and a "mirror server" (secondary). In a Database Mirroring configuration, the mirror server mirrors the transaction logs of the primary database instance. ¶77 col. 4:45-50
the secondary server generating an acknowledgment signal indicating that a selected critical database transaction at the primary database instance is mirrored at the secondary database instance, the critical databases server including a mirroring component communicating with the primary and secondary servers to transfer database log file entries... the secondary server applying and logging the transferred database log file entries... and producing said acknowledgement signal subsequent to the applying and logging... In a synchronous operation, after a transaction's log records are sent to the mirror server and written to disk ("hardens the log"), the mirror server "returns an acknowledgement to the principal server." This occurs after the log entries are applied and logged. ¶78, 80 col. 3:3-13
a plurality of other servers each supporting corresponding database instances The Log Shipping feature is used to ship data to a "plurality of other servers" which support corresponding database instances. ¶83 col. 4:51-53
a data replicator communicating with the critical database server and the plurality of other servers to replicate the selected critical database transaction on at least one of said plurality of other servers responsive to the acknowledgment signal In Log Shipping, "Backup Jobs" act as a "data replicator" that sends transaction log backups from the primary database to the secondary servers. The complaint alleges this replication is "responsive to the acknowledgement signal" because, when combining the features, "the mirroring session is established before log shipping," and an acknowledgement is sent to the principal server in Database Mirroring. ¶84-85 col. 3:55-67
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Functional Questions: A central question is whether the combination of two distinct Microsoft features, "Database Mirroring" and "Log Shipping," meets the single functional limitation of a "data replicator... responsive to the acknowledgment signal." The complaint alleges a temporal sequence (mirroring established before shipping) but does not specify a direct, programmatic dependency where the acknowledgment from mirroring triggers the replication by log shipping, as depicted in the patent’s Figure 3. The nature of the interaction between these two features will be a key point of dispute.

U.S. Patent No. 7,437,730 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a plurality of servers to be utilized by multiple workloads The Azure platform contains multiple Availability Zones, which contain datacenters housing multiple servers that are utilized by multiple workloads. ¶96 col. 1:41-43
a plurality of virtual machines at each of the plurality of servers, wherein the plurality of virtual machines at each of the plurality of servers each serve a different one of the multiple workloads Each Azure Availability Zone consists of multiple servers, and at each server, there exist multiple virtual machines that serve different workloads, such as Web tier and Business tier subnets. ¶97 col. 1:44-48
resource management logic to distribute server resources to each of the plurality of virtual machines according to current and predicted resource needs... Microsoft Azure Resource Manager is alleged to be the "resource management logic" that distributes server resources to VMs according to current needs (e.g., via on-demand scaling) and predicted needs (e.g., via scheduled scaling). ¶98-99 col. 1:49-54
whereby, the fractions of each of the multiple workloads handled by each of the virtual machines can by dynamically adjusted to provide for optimization of the server resources... The "vertical scale up/down feature" in Azure IaaS allegedly allows individual VMs to be scaled up or down dynamically based on workload demands, which in turn increases or decreases the "fractions of each of the workloads" running on those VMs. ¶101 col. 2:16-21
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the meaning of distributing "fractions of each of the multiple workloads... handled by the plurality of virtual machines." The complaint's theory focuses on "vertical scaling," where a single VM's size is increased to handle more of a workload. This raises the question of whether this meets the claim language, which could be interpreted to require distributing a single workload across multiple VMs and adjusting the fractional load between them, rather than scaling a single instance.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For U.S. Patent No. 7,177,886 (Claim 1):

  • The Term: "data replicator... responsive to the acknowledgment signal"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the claimed invention, connecting the high-availability mirroring step with the broader asynchronous replication step. The infringement case hinges on whether Microsoft’s two separate features (Database Mirroring and Log Shipping) can be characterized as a single "data replicator" that operates "responsive to" the signal from the mirroring process.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the data replication component’s function as monitoring logs and constructing replication transactions, without explicitly requiring a single, monolithic software component. The term "responsive to" could be argued to encompass a system configured such that one action (replication) is set to occur only after another action (acknowledged mirroring) is complete. (’886 Patent, col. 5:16-31).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 3 of the patent depicts a "transmit gate" (62) that is explicitly controlled by the acknowledgment signal (60), suggesting a direct, programmatic triggering mechanism. This could support a narrower construction requiring more than just a pre-configured temporal sequence where mirroring is established before shipping begins. (’886 Patent, col. 6:8-15, Fig. 3).

For U.S. Patent No. 7,437,730 (Claim 1):

  • The Term: "fractions of each of the multiple workloads are handled by the plurality of virtual machines"
  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused functionality is "vertical scaling" (changing the size of one VM), while the claim language refers to fractions being handled by a "plurality of virtual machines." The case may turn on whether scaling up one VM that is part of a plurality is equivalent to adjusting workload fractions among that plurality.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim includes a functional "whereby" clause stating that the fractions are dynamically adjusted "to provide for optimization." An argument could be made that any mechanism that achieves this functional outcome, including resizing a single VM within a larger system to handle a greater fraction of a workload, falls within the claim's scope. (’730 Patent, col. 2:16-21).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description states that "The workloads are each distributed over a subset of the plurality of VMs. Each VM in the subset... exists at a separate one of the plurality of servers." (’730 Patent, col. 2:3-8). This language may suggest a model where a single workload is actively partitioned and balanced across multiple VMs, which differs from resizing a single VM to handle more of that workload.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The allegations are based on Microsoft providing instructional guides, manuals, and other documentation through its website that allegedly instruct and encourage customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶87, 103, 116, 140, 155).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents. The basis for willfulness is alleged pre-suit knowledge, based on the asserted patents being cited as references during the patent prosecution of various Microsoft-owned patents and patent applications, with the earliest alleged knowledge date being "at least as of 2009." (Compl. ¶88, 104, 117, 141, 156).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of functional combination: For the '886 patent, does the sequential operation of Microsoft’s distinct "Database Mirroring" and "Log Shipping" features meet the claim requirement of a "data replicator" that is functionally "responsive to" the mirroring acknowledgment, or are they technically independent systems that are merely used in concert?
  2. The case will also present a key question of definitional scope: For the '730 patent, can the claim term "fractions of... workloads... handled by the plurality of virtual machines" be construed to read on the accused "vertical scaling" of a single VM, or does the claim language require a system that actively partitions and rebalances a workload across multiple different VMs?
  3. A significant procedural and strategic question will be the impact of post-filing invalidations: Given that the asserted claims of two of the five patents ('612 and '132) have been cancelled in IPR proceedings, a primary issue will be how this reduction in the case's scope affects Plaintiff’s overall infringement theory and potential damages model for the three remaining patents.