DCT
6:21-cv-00596
Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Hewlett Parkard Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Intellectual Ventures I LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sorey & Gilliland LLP; Prince Lobel Tye LLP
- Case Identification: 6:21-cv-00596, W.D. Tex., 12/03/2021
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business within the district and has committed acts of patent infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s SimpliVity series of hyperconverged infrastructure solutions infringes a patent related to managing distributed data storage systems.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns distributed data storage systems designed to improve data availability, resiliency, and scalability, particularly for cloud-based and virtualized computing environments.
- Key Procedural History: This filing is an Amended Complaint. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the patent-in-suit via a letter dated June 10, 2021, a fact which may be relevant to the allegation of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-02-05 | U.S. Patent No. 6,779,082 Priority Date |
| 2004-08-17 | U.S. Patent No. 6,779,082 Issued |
| 2021-06-10 | Plaintiff's notice letter sent to Defendant |
| 2021-12-03 | Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,779,082 ("the '082 Patent"), titled NETWORK-BASED DISK REDUNDANCY STORAGE SYSTEM AND METHOD, issued on August 17, 2004.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the limitations of prior art data storage technologies, such as Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID), in the context of networked computing. These systems were often expensive, difficult to scale, and could not adequately protect against the failure of a controlling host computer, making data unavailable ('082 Patent, col. 1:13-50).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a distributed data storage system comprising multiple data storage units connected over a network and managed by an "Object Management System" (OMS) ('082 Patent, Fig. 1). The OMS intelligently handles file requests by preferentially selecting a storage unit for access based on that unit's association with the external input/output (I/O) connection of the request, and it also manages the creation of redundant copies of data across different units to ensure high availability ('082 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:48-54).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide a more scalable, resilient, and cost-effective method for managing data in a distributed environment compared to monolithic and expensive dual-ported RAID systems ('082 Patent, col. 2:19-24; Compl. ¶21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 3 (Compl. ¶25, 27).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A network.
- A plurality of distributed data storage units coupled to the network, which have a plurality of external inputs and outputs.
- An object management system (OMS) manager unit that implements an OMS.
- The OMS preferentially selects a first storage unit for file access if the request is associated with an external input/output of that first unit.
- In response to a file retrieval request, the OMS is configured to preferentially return a hostname and pathname of a copy of the data file stored within the first storage unit.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused '082 Products" are identified as the HPE SimpliVity series of Hyperconverged Infrastructure (HCI) solutions and any other HPE products that operate in a substantially similar manner (Compl. ¶25).
Functionality and Market Context
- The HPE SimpliVity platform is a software-defined HCI solution that integrates compute, storage, and networking into scalable building blocks (nodes) (Compl. ¶28). The complaint includes a diagram illustrating how SimpliVity technology assimilates IT infrastructure below the hypervisor (Compl. p. 10, Figure 1).
- Multiple SimpliVity nodes are clustered to form a shared resource pool over a network, managed by software components including the "HPE OmniStack Virtual Controller" (OVC) and the "Data Virtualization Platform" (DVP) (Compl. ¶14, 29, 31). A supplied diagram shows this data virtualization platform spanning three nodes (Compl. p. 12, Figure 2).
- The system is alleged to ensure data resiliency by automatically creating a primary and a secondary copy of virtual machine data on two separate nodes within a cluster (Compl. ¶32, 18).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'082 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a network; | The accused HPE SimpliVity system is alleged to include a network of connected clusters, referred to as a "Federation Network," that forms a shared resource pool. | ¶29 | col. 3:20-30 |
| a plurality of distributed data storage units coupled to the network, the plurality of distributed data storage units having a plurality of external inputs and outputs; and | The SimpliVity platform is alleged to logically cluster multiple storage nodes, which serve as the distributed data storage units. These units provide host computer interfaces for I/O via protocols like NFS. A diagram illustrates this I/O flow from a virtual machine to the datastore (Compl. p. 13). | ¶29, 30 | col. 3:36-47 |
| an object management system (OMS) manager unit coupled to the plurality of distributed data storage units via the network, the OMS manager unit and the plurality of distributed data storage unit implementing an object management system, | The HPE OmniStack Virtual Controllers (OVCs) and the Data Virtualization Platform (DVP) are alleged to function as the OMS manager unit, controlling all aspects of the SimpliVity infrastructure. A diagram shows an OVC controlling data flow between a VM and physical storage (Compl. p. 14). | ¶31 | col. 3:48-54 |
| wherein the object management system preferentially selects a first one of the plurality of distributed data storage units for file access in response to a file access request provided that the file access request is associated with an external input/output of the first distributed data storage unit; | The complaint alleges that the SimpliVity platform creates primary and secondary data containers and that, by default, requests for data are served from the primary container by the OVC residing on the same node. This is alleged to constitute preferential selection based on association with the node's I/O. | ¶32, 33 | col. 5:40-57 |
| wherein the object management system is configured such that, in response to a file retrieval request... the object management system preferentially returns a hostname and pathname of a copy of the data file that is stored within the first distributed data storage unit. | It is alleged that in response to a file read request, the controller on the node with the primary data copy serves that copy. A provided console output table shows primary and secondary data container locations by node, which the complaint uses to support the allegation that a location is returned (Compl. p. 19). | ¶34 | col. 6:29-34 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the claimed "OMS manager unit" and "distributed data storage units," depicted in the patent as physically distinct hardware components ('082 Patent, Fig. 1), can be construed to read on the software-defined, hyperconverged architecture of the accused products, where management functions (the OVC) run as virtual machines on the same hardware nodes that provide storage.
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory relies on mapping a virtual machine's I/O request to the patent's "external input/output" of a storage unit. This raises the question of whether a virtualized I/O request processed by a hypervisor on a node is equivalent to a request associated with a physical I/O port as described in the patent's embodiments. Further, it raises the question of what evidence will demonstrate that the accused system "returns a hostname and pathname" rather than transparently resolving the request through its virtualization layer.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "object management system (OMS) manager unit"
Context and Importance: This term defines the central controller of the claimed invention. The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether HPE's distributed software components, such as the OVC and DVP, can be collectively or individually mapped to this "unit."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a functional description, stating the OMS provides "name translation, object location, and redundancy management" ('082 Patent, col. 3:50-52). This functional language could support an interpretation that is not limited to a single piece of hardware and could encompass a distributed software system.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures depict the "OMS Manager Unit" (110a) as a discrete component separate from the "Distributed Data Storage Unit" (130a) ('082 Patent, Fig. 1, 3). This could support a narrower construction requiring a physically distinct, centralized manager, which may create a distinction from the accused hyperconverged architecture where management and storage functions are co-resident on each node.
The Term: "preferentially selects... provided that the file access request is associated with an external input/output of the first distributed data storage unit"
Context and Importance: This limitation describes the core logic for how the system routes requests, making it a likely focal point of dispute. The infringement allegation hinges on equating the accused product's default behavior of serving data from the local node with this specific claimed condition.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "associated with" should be interpreted functionally. In a virtualized system, an I/O request from a VM running on a physical node is functionally "associated with" that node's external I/O, even if processed through a hypervisor.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification describes a scenario where an application sends a request that "has an association with an external I/O connection" and the OMS selects the storage unit "that is associated with the external I/O connection" ('082 Patent, col. 5:43-50). This language, along with Figure 1 showing distinct I/O lines to each unit, could support a narrower reading that requires a more direct physical mapping than may exist in the accused system.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement, stating that HPE provides customers with products, services, and instructions (via technical documents and manuals) that direct them to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶37). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the accused products are not staple articles of commerce and contain components especially made for use in an infringing way (Compl. ¶41).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The basis for this allegation is a June 10, 2021 notice letter and the service of the original complaint in the case (Compl. ¶39).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technological translation: can the claim language of the '082 patent, which describes a system architecture of physically discrete "manager units" and "storage units" with "external I/O connections," be construed to cover the software-defined, hyperconverged architecture of the accused products, where management and storage functions are integrated on each node?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational mapping: what evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused system's process of serving data from a local primary container is equivalent to the claimed function of "preferentially return[ing] a hostname and pathname," as opposed to being a different technical mechanism for transparently resolving a virtualized data request?