DCT

6:21-cv-00462

Interactive Graphic Solutions LLC v. Microsoft Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: [Interactive Graphic Solutions LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/interactive-graphic-solutions-llc) v. Microsoft Corp, 6:21-cv-00462, W.D. Tex., 07/22/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Microsoft maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including corporate sales offices in Austin and San Antonio and a data center in the San Antonio area, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s operating systems featuring RemoteFX technology and its Azure cloud services infringe eight patents related to centralized, interactive graphics processing.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns systems and methods for running graphics-intensive applications on a central server and streaming the visual output to remote, less-powerful client devices, a foundational concept for cloud gaming and virtual desktop infrastructure.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a specific history wherein an inventor of the patents-in-suit disclosed the technology in 2005 to an individual who subsequently founded Calista Technologies. Microsoft acquired Calista in 2008 and, according to the complaint, developed the accused RemoteFX technology based on the acquired assets. The complaint also alleges that Microsoft gained knowledge of the patents-in-suit through citations made during the prosecution of its own, unrelated patent applications.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-03-01 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2005-04-07 Meeting alleged between inventor Graham Clemie and Neal Margulis
2006-02-22 Neal Margulis allegedly forms Calista Technologies
2008-01-01 Microsoft acquires Calista Technologies (approx. date)
2011-02-01 Microsoft announces RemoteFX technology (approx. date)
2011-03-29 U.S. Patent No. 7,916,147 Issues
2011-12-20 U.S. Patent No. 8,081,192 Issues
2012-06-19 U.S. Patent No. 8,203,568 Issues
2013-06-18 U.S. Patent No. 8,466,922 Issues
2015-08-18 U.S. Patent No. 9,113,146 Issues
2015-08-25 U.S. Patent No. 9,117,285 Issues
2016-08-23 U.S. Patent No. 9,424,621 Issues
2017-12-26 U.S. Patent No. 9,852,490 Issues
2021-07-22 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,916,147 - "Centralised Interactive Graphical Application Server"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,916,147, "Centralised Interactive Graphical Application Server," issued March 29, 2011.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the technical and commercial limitations of running graphics-intensive applications, like video games, on local user hardware. These limitations include the high cost for consumers to purchase and regularly upgrade powerful computers or consoles, and the expense for developers to adapt software for multiple hardware platforms (’147 Patent, col. 1:7-24).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized server architecture that runs the application, renders the graphics, and streams the resulting images as a compressed video feed to a remote, less-powerful client device (’147 Patent, col. 2:9-17). A key aspect of the solution is a method to accelerate the video compression needed for low-latency streaming. This is achieved by intercepting the graphics instructions sent from the application to the graphics processing unit (GPU). A manipulated version of these instructions is sent to a second, parallel graphics processing path, which generates "compression assistance data," such as motion vectors, separately from the primary rendered image. This assistance data is then fed to the video encoder to speed up its process (’147 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 6).
    • Technical Importance: The described architecture addresses the critical challenge of minimizing latency in remote computing, which is essential for a viable user experience in interactive applications like cloud gaming (’147 Patent, col. 2:40-52).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶106).
    • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
      • A method of intercepting a first set of instructions for a graphics processor module.
      • Generating a second set of instructions.
      • Processing the first set of instructions to generate first graphics data (image frames).
      • Processing the second set of instructions to generate second graphics data.
      • Processing the second graphics data to generate compression assistance data.
      • Using the compression assistance data to process the first graphics data to generate a compressed video data signal.
      • Wherein generating the second set of instructions involves analyzing the first set to determine which instructions are useful for creating the compression assistance data.

U.S. Patent No. 8,081,192 - "Centralised Interactive Graphical Application Server"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,081,192, "Centralised Interactive Graphical Application Server," issued December 20, 2011.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: As a continuation in the same patent family, the ’192 Patent addresses the same problems of high local hardware costs and network latency associated with delivering high-end graphical applications to remote users (’192 Patent, col. 1:19-34).
    • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a similar method for generating a compressed video signal in a centralized server system. The method involves intercepting graphics instructions from software, analyzing those instructions to determine which are useful for compression, and generating a second set of instructions. The system then processes these instruction sets to generate both the primary image frames and separate compression assistance data, which is then used by an encoder (’192 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-12).
    • Technical Importance: This method provides a way to extract information valuable for video compression directly from the graphics pipeline, potentially reducing the computational load and latency of the encoding process (’192 Patent, col. 4:13-23).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶114).
    • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
      • Intercepting graphics instructions from graphics generating software.
      • Analyzing the instructions to determine which are useful for generating compression assistance data.
      • Generating a second set of instructions based on the analysis.
      • Processing the original or second set of instructions to generate graphics data (image elements).
      • Processing a portion of the second set of instructions to generate compression assistance data.
      • Using the compression assistance data to process the graphics data to generate a compressed video signal.

U.S. Patent No. 8,203,568 - "Sharing a graphical processing unit between a plurality of programs"

  • Patent Identification: "Sharing a graphical processing unit between a plurality of programs," issued June 19, 2012.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to methods for a single GPU to be shared by multiple graphics programs running on a centralized server. It describes using instructions to manage how the GPU allocates resources and memory for rendering frames from different programs, enabling efficient virtualization for remote streaming.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶122).
  • Accused Features: Microsoft's Operating Systems with RemoteFX and Azure cloud services, which allegedly allow for sharing of graphics processing resources to serve multiple remote users (Compl. ¶122).

U.S. Patent No. 8,466,922 - "Centralised interactive graphical application server"

  • Patent Identification: "Centralised interactive graphical application server," issued June 18, 2013.
  • Technology Synopsis: Continuing the core technology, this patent describes a method of processing graphics instructions on a centralized server. The method includes producing "compression assistance data" by inspecting the instructions outputted by graphics programs and using that data in the compression step.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶130).
  • Accused Features: Microsoft's Operating Systems with RemoteFX and Azure cloud services, which are alleged to process graphics instructions centrally and use resulting data to aid in video compression for streaming (Compl. ¶130).

U.S. Patent No. 9,113,146 - "Centralised Interactive Graphical Application Server"

  • Patent Identification: "Centralised Interactive Graphical Application Server," issued August 18, 2015.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent also describes a centralized graphics processing system. It claims a method of generating compressed image data by identifying and modifying graphics instructions having an influence on a coordinate associated with the image data, and then generating compression assistance data from those instructions.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶138).
  • Accused Features: Microsoft's Operating Systems with RemoteFX and Azure cloud services are accused of practicing the claimed methods for generating compressed video streams (Compl. ¶138).

U.S. Patent No. 9,117,285 - "Centralised Interactive Graphical Application Server"

  • Patent Identification: "Centralised Interactive Graphical Application Server," issued August 25, 2015.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to a system for producing compressed image data that includes a graphics instruction modification module. The system modifies instructions from a graphics program to create modified instructions, which are then processed by a GPU to facilitate the generation of compressed image data for transmission.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶146).
  • Accused Features: Microsoft's Operating Systems with RemoteFX and Azure cloud services, which are alleged to modify or process graphics instructions to enable efficient compression and streaming (Compl. ¶146).

U.S. Patent No. 9,424,621 - "Centralised Interactive Graphical Application Server"

  • Patent Identification: "Centralised Interactive Graphical Application Server," issued August 23, 2016.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for processing multiple graphical programs on a centralized server. The invention involves modifying instructions from different programs to facilitate GPU sharing and generating compression assistance data used to compress the resulting images for transmission.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶154).
  • Accused Features: Microsoft's Operating Systems with RemoteFX and Azure cloud services are accused of infringing by processing graphics from multiple programs for remote display (Compl. ¶154).

U.S. Patent No. 9,852,490 - "Centralised Interactive Graphical Application Server"

  • Patent Identification: "Centralised Interactive Graphical Application Server," issued December 26, 2017.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent also describes a system for processing graphical programs on a centralized server where compression assistance data is produced by intercepting instructions from the programs. This data is then used in the compression step before images are transmitted to remote devices.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶162).
  • Accused Features: Microsoft's Operating Systems with RemoteFX and Azure cloud services, which are alleged to use intercepted instruction data to aid compression for remote streaming (Compl. ¶162).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The Accused Instrumentalities are identified as Microsoft's operating systems that include RemoteFX technology (e.g., Windows Server, Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 10) and the Microsoft Azure cloud services platform, including its virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) and virtual apps services (Compl. ¶¶ 88, 89).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that these products and services provide functionality for executing applications on a central server and transmitting the graphical output to a remote user (Compl. ¶¶ 89, 106). RemoteFX is a suite of technologies for providing a remote user with a graphical experience comparable to a local machine, including graphics virtualization and codecs for encoding the remote display. Azure VDI and virtual apps are cloud-based platforms that deliver entire desktops or individual applications to end-users from Microsoft's data centers, allegedly practicing the claimed inventions (Compl. ¶¶ 89, 106).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates exemplary claim charts by reference as Exhibits 9-16, but these exhibits are not included in the provided document. Therefore, the infringement theory is summarized below in prose.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Narrative Infringement Theory (’147 and ’192 Patents):
    The complaint alleges that Microsoft's Accused Instrumentalities perform the methods claimed in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 106, 114). The narrative theory suggests that when a user interacts with a remote application via Microsoft's VDI or RemoteFX, the system infringes. On the server side, the system allegedly intercepts the graphics instructions generated by the application (e.g., DirectX or OpenGL calls). It is alleged that the system then analyzes these instructions and generates a second, modified set of instructions or data. One set of processing results in the primary "graphics data" (the image frames to be sent to the user), while the other results in "compression assistance data" (such as motion vectors or object boundary information). This separately generated assistance data is then allegedly used by a video encoder to create the final "compressed video data signal" that is streamed to the user's client device (Compl. ¶¶ 106-107, 114-115). The infringement allegations for the remaining patents follow this same core theory, tailored to the specific claim language of each patent.

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Scope Questions: A potential point of contention may be the interpretation of claim terms requiring the "generating" of a "second set of instructions" and processing them separately. The patents' embodiments suggest a distinct, parallel processing architecture, potentially involving two GPUs or two distinct passes on one GPU (’147 Patent, Fig. 6). The infringement analysis may raise the question of whether Microsoft's technologies, which may utilize virtualized GPUs (vGPUs) and highly integrated encoding pipelines, practice these claimed steps of generating and processing distinct instruction sets.
    • Technical Questions: A key technical question may be the origin and nature of the "compression assistance data" in the accused systems. The patents describe analyzing the original graphics instructions to generate this data. The dispute may focus on whether the accused systems derive compression-related information from the pre-rendering instructions as claimed, or whether they derive such information later in the pipeline by analyzing the already-rendered pixel data of the image frames, which could present a mismatch with the claimed technical operation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "compression assistance data"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's contribution. Its construction will be critical in determining whether the data used by Microsoft's codecs and remote display protocols falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on whether this data must be generated through a specific process (i.e., from analyzing original graphics instructions) or if it more broadly covers any data that aids an encoder, regardless of its origin in the processing pipeline.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists examples of compression assistance data, including "motion vector data" and information about which parts of a scene to encode as separate objects, without strictly limiting its method of generation in the broadest statements (’147 Patent, col. 4:38-51).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description and figures repeatedly show this data being generated by a secondary graphics processing unit or path that processes a "specially manipulated version" of the original graphics instructions (’147 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 6). This may support a narrower construction requiring the data to be generated from pre-rendering instructions, as opposed to post-rendering image analysis.

  • The Term: "analyzing said first set of instructions"

  • Context and Importance: This term requires an active step of inspection and determination. The dispute will likely turn on what level and type of "analysis" is required. The central question is whether the accused systems perform an analysis of the application's graphics API calls to inform compression, or if they simply render the graphics and analyze the resulting pixel data, which may not meet this limitation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: "Analyzing" is a broad term, and a court could find that any inspection of the instruction stream to extract information—even for purposes other than creating a new set of instructions—satisfies this element.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes this analysis in the context of creating a new vertex shader program specifically designed to extract positional information for motion vectors (’147 Patent, col. 17:30-49). This suggests a detailed, programmatic analysis and modification of the graphics code itself, not merely a high-level inspection of API calls.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Microsoft induces infringement by providing the Accused Instrumentalities to its customers and providing instructions, product manuals, marketing materials, and customer support that encourage and facilitate use in an infringing manner (e.g., setting up a VDI environment) (Compl. ¶¶ 90, 107, 111).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged to arise from two sources: first, a 2005 meeting where the technology was allegedly disclosed to the founder of a company later acquired by Microsoft; and second, numerous instances where the patents-in-suit or their parent applications were cited by or to the USPTO during the prosecution of Microsoft's own patents (Compl. ¶¶ 92-96, 170-174). The complaint also alleges willful blindness, asserting Microsoft has a policy of not reviewing patents owned by others (Compl. ¶110).

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

  • A core issue will be one of architectural correspondence: The patents disclose a novel system centered on creating separate "compression assistance data" by analyzing and processing graphics instructions in a parallel path. A key question for the court will be whether Microsoft's RemoteFX and Azure technologies, which employ different architectures such as GPU virtualization, perform functionally equivalent steps that map onto the specific claims of intercepting, analyzing, and processing distinct sets of instructions and data.
  • The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: The proper construction of the term "compression assistance data" will be critical. The central issue is whether the term is limited to data derived directly from analyzing pre-rendering graphics commands, as the patent embodiments suggest, or if it can be read more broadly to cover any data that aids an encoder, even if generated by analyzing already-rendered pixel frames.
  • A key factual dispute will be one of knowledge and intent: The complaint presents a detailed narrative alleging Microsoft had pre-suit knowledge of the technology through an acquisition and awareness of the patents through its own patent prosecution activities. The court will need to weigh the evidence supporting these allegations to determine if Microsoft's alleged infringement, if any, was willful.