Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprises Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Intellectual Ventures II LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sorey & Gilliland, LLP
• Case Identification: 6:21-cv-01298, W.D. Tex., 12/15/2021
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant's alleged regular and established places of business within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s GreenLake cloud computing platforms and related products infringe a patent directed to systems and methods for hosting multiple, customized computing clusters for different clients.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the architecture for providing high-performance computing (HPC) and other specialized cluster types as a managed, on-demand service, a significant component of the modern cloud and "as-a-service" IT market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant received a notice letter identifying the patent-in-suit on December 14, 2021, one day prior to the complaint's filing. This allegation primarily forms the basis for a claim of post-filing willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-10-30	’841 Patent Priority Date
2010-10-26	’841 Patent Issue Date
2015-04-XX	Alleged launch of accused system at Ghent University
2021-09-01	HPE announces contract with NSA for accused GreenLake services
2021-12-14	Alleged date of notice letter sent to Defendant
2021-12-15	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,822,841 - "METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR HOSTING MULTIPLE, CUSTOMIZED COMPUTING CLUSTERS"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,822,841, "METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR HOSTING MULTIPLE, CUSTOMIZED COMPUTING CLUSTERS," issued October 26, 2010.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes that specialized computing clusters, such as for High Performance Computing (HPC), were traditionally difficult and costly for individual companies to purchase, configure, and maintain on their own premises, which limited their adoption despite growing need (’841 Patent, col. 1:30-44). This forced users to either accept a "one-size-fits-all solution" or forgo the benefits of cluster computing (’841 Patent, col. 2:51-53).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized system for hosting multiple, distinct computing clusters that are customized for the specific needs of different remote clients (’841 Patent, col. 3:5-14). The architecture uses a private network linked to a public network (like the internet), with gateway mechanisms to isolate the network traffic of each client's cluster (’841 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 5:29-44). A key feature is a two-tiered monitoring system that checks for operational problems at both the overall cluster level and the individual node level, reporting issues to a central operator (’841 Patent, col. 8:28-46).
• Technical Importance: This architecture describes a foundational model for providing specialized computing "as a service," abstracting the physical hardware and maintenance burdens away from the end-user and allowing a provider to offer tailored computing environments on demand (’841 Patent, col. 2:46-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶28).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A computer system with a private communications network linked to a public one.
  • A first cluster with a first configuration linked to the private network.
  • A second cluster with a second, different configuration also linked to the private network, where each configuration provides a computing environment for a different client task.
  • A monitoring system that monitors both clusters, identifies problems, and issues alerts.
  • This monitoring system must include a "main monitor" for the clusters and separate "monitors for each node" that check for hardware and software problems and report them to the main monitor.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are the HPE GreenLake for High Performance Computing (HPC), HPE GreenLake for Containers, GreenLake for Private Cloud, HPE Performance Cluster Manager, and related HPE Apollo and ProLiant Systems (Compl. ¶28).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused products as delivering hosted and managed computing environments as a "pay-as-you-go service" (Compl. ¶15). It is alleged that customers can use these services to provision clusters with varying configurations, such as "large-memory" or "large-cpu" blueprints, tailored for specific applications like databases or CPU-intensive tasks (Compl. ¶35; p. 18).
• The complaint alleges the system includes management and monitoring tools like the HPE Performance Cluster Manager and GreenLake Central dashboards, which provide visibility into cluster and node health (Compl. ¶33, ¶37). A screenshot from the complaint shows a dashboard monitoring distinct "Texas Cluster" and "New York Cluster" environments simultaneously (Compl. p. 15).
• The complaint cites a $2 billion contract with the National Security Agency for these services as evidence of their commercial importance (Compl. p. 9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 7,822,841 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a private communications network linked to a public communications network;	The accused products allegedly include a private cluster management/internal network that provides connectivity to public networks like the Internet.	¶31	col. 5:11-20
a first cluster comprising a set of computing resources...in a first configuration... a second cluster...in a second configuration...wherein the first configuration differs from the second configuration	The accused products allegedly allow for the creation of multiple, differently configured clusters, such as a "large-memory" configuration and a "large-cpu" configuration using cluster blueprints.	¶32, ¶35	col. 3:15-20
wherein the first configuration provides a first computing environment for performing a first client task and the second configuration provides a second computing environment for performing a second client task;	Different cluster blueprints are allegedly used for different tasks, such as a "large-memory" blueprint for database applications and a "large-cpu" blueprint for CI/CD applications. A complaint exhibit shows these distinct blueprints. (Compl. p. 18).	¶35	col. 6:40-57
a monitoring system monitoring operations of the first and second clusters, identifying operational and connectivity problems, and issuing an alert...	The accused products allegedly monitor cluster-level metrics and display alerts identifying which cluster is affected. A complaint exhibit shows a dashboard with "Overall status: Warning" for one cluster. (Compl. p. 15).	¶33, ¶34	col. 8:37-46
wherein the monitoring system comprises a main monitor that operates to monitor the first and second clusters...and further comprises monitors for each node...operating to check for hardware and software problems within a particular node and to report...to the main monitor.	The accused products allegedly provide status indicators for clusters as a whole as well as for individual nodes, with a "Node view" functionality that displays alerts for specific nodes. A complaint exhibit shows a GUI for monitoring an individual node's metrics. (Compl. p. 17).	¶36, ¶37	col. 8:28-46

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A question may arise as to whether HPE's cloud service, which may use shared physical hardware to dynamically provision resources for multiple customers, constitutes distinct "first" and "second clusters" as that term is used in the patent. The complaint's evidence of logically separate "Texas Cluster" and "New York Cluster" dashboards (Compl. p. 15) may support the plaintiff's position, but the underlying physical architecture could be a point of dispute.
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires a specific two-tiered monitoring architecture where node-level monitors "report the hardware and software problems to the main monitor." A key factual question will be whether the accused system’s monitoring tools, such as the HPE Performance Cluster Manager, operate with this specific reporting hierarchy, or if the flow of monitoring data follows a different technical architecture.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "cluster"

  • Context and Importance: The definition of "cluster" is fundamental. The dispute may turn on whether a logically-defined and provisioned set of resources within a modern, multi-tenant cloud environment meets the patent's definition, or if the term requires a more physically segregated collection of hardware.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a functional definition: "A cluster may be defined as a group of two or more nodes that have the capability of exchanging data" (’841 Patent, col. 10:27-29). This language could support a broad interpretation that encompasses logically-defined environments.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently depict clusters as discrete, separate blocks (e.g., "CLUSTER 1 250," "CLUSTER 2 251"), which could be argued to imply a requirement for greater physical or architectural separation than may exist in a shared infrastructure environment (’841 Patent, Fig. 2).

• The Term: "a private communications network linked to a public communications network"

  • Context and Importance: Infringement depends on successfully mapping HPE's cloud networking onto this two-network model. Practitioners may focus on whether the accused "private cluster management/internal network" and its connection to the internet (Compl. ¶31) correspond to the distinct "private" and "public" networks as claimed, or if the technical reality of the software-defined networking is different.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the public network broadly (e.g., "the Internet") and the private network as the one to which clusters are linked, which could be argued to cover many modern cloud architectures (’841 Patent, col. 3:32-34; col. 5:16-17).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's primary embodiment in Figure 2 shows a specific topology where a "private company network" (230) acts as an intermediary between a firewall (210) and the cluster gateways (240). A party could argue that this specific intermediate network is a required element of the claimed "private communications network," and that the accused system lacks such a structure.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that HPE provides products and services with the intent that its customers use them in an infringing manner, citing user manuals, documentation, and marketing materials as evidence of instructional activity (Compl. ¶39). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that components, such as specialized software, are not staple articles of commerce and have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶43).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on HPE's purported knowledge of the ’841 patent "since at least as early as the receipt of IV's December 14, 2021 notice letter," the day before the suit was filed (Compl. ¶41). The allegation appears to primarily concern post-filing conduct.

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: can the structure of Defendant's modern, multi-tenant GreenLake cloud environment, which relies on software-defined networking and shared physical infrastructure, be mapped onto the patent's more discretely illustrated architecture of distinct "clusters" operating on a "private communications network"?
• The case will also likely involve a question of definitional scope: can the term "cluster", as understood and described in a patent from the 2007-2010 timeframe, be construed to read on the logically-provisioned and potentially ephemeral customer environments created within today's advanced cloud platforms?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused monitoring system perform the specific two-tiered reporting function recited in Claim 1—where distinct node-level monitors check for problems and explicitly "report" them to a "main monitor"—or is there a fundamental mismatch in the technical flow of monitoring data in the accused products?