LS Cloud Storage Tech LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: LS Cloud Storage Technologies, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Cisco Systems, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00845, W.D. Tex., 08/09/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s data storage products and services infringe three patents related to managing data in computer networks using distributed cached storage.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for improving the performance, scalability, and cost-effectiveness of data storage systems by using a network of standard computers to create a distributed cache architecture.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents share a common origin, with U.S. Patent No. 10,154,092 and U.S. Patent No. 8,225,002 deriving from the same parent application as U.S. Patent No. 6,549,988. This shared prosecution history may be relevant for claim construction and estoppel issues. The complaint reserves the right to later assert claims for indirect and willful infringement pending discovery.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1999-01-22	Priority Date for ’092, ’988, and ’002 Patents
2003-04-15	’988 Patent Issued
2012-07-17	’002 Patent Issued
2018-12-11	’092 Patent Issued
2022-08-09	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,154,092 - “Data Sharing Using Distributed Cache In A Network Of Heterogeneous Computers,” issued Dec. 11, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art data storage systems as being built with proprietary hardware and low-level software, which made them expensive, inflexible, and difficult to scale (ʼ092 Patent, col. 1:46-50). Furthermore, systems that integrated network access often required complex and costly assemblies of separate systems to handle local Input/Output (I/O) channels versus general network links (ʼ092 Patent, col. 2:41-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a data storage system constructed from a network of standard, off-the-shelf personal computers (PCs) (ʼ092 Patent, col. 1:50-56). This system architecture separates front-end client access (via both I/O channels and network links) from back-end physical disk operations, using an intermediate cache memory to improve performance (ʼ092 Patent, col. 5:4-9). A key component is a configuration manager that ensures data consistency across the distributed cache, allowing for independent access from both local and remote hosts (ʼ092 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:3-8).
• Technical Importance: The described approach sought to leverage commodity hardware and standard networking protocols to build scalable, high-performance storage systems at a reduced cost compared to the specialized, proprietary systems common at the time (ʼ092 Patent, col. 3:45-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-24 (Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
  • A first interface configured to receive I/O traffic from a host device via a dedicated I/O channel, where the traffic includes a read command.
  • A second interface configured to receive data via a network.
  • A cache memory and a storage device.
  • A processor coupled to the cache and storage device, where the communication path to the storage device is "distinct from the dedicated I/O channel."
  • The processor is configured to access the cache during I/O processing and perform an access operation at the storage device based on the I/O traffic.
• The complaint does not specify which dependent claims may be asserted.

U.S. Patent No. 6,549,988 - “Data Storage System Comprising A Network Of PCs And Method Using Same,” issued Apr. 15, 2003

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the drawbacks of prior art storage systems, noting they relied on "proprietary hardware and very low-level software" or were "complex assemblies of two systems," leading to high costs and inflexibility (’988 Patent, col. 1:35-40, col. 2:46-51).
• The Patented Solution: As the parent patent in the asserted family, it introduces the foundational architecture of using a network of interconnected PCs to form a data storage system (’988 Patent, Abstract). The solution involves software components, including a "front-end" for handling I/O requests, a "cache manager" for managing data in cache, and a "back-end" for disk operations, with a "configuration manager" to make routing decisions and ensure consistency (’988 Patent, col. 9:16-33). This structure separates disk operations from network and I/O traffic, a key aspect of the invention's performance improvement strategy (’988 Patent, col. 9:28-33).
• Technical Importance: This invention provided a method for building a high-performance, distributed storage system using standard, less-expensive hardware, challenging the incumbent model of costly, monolithic storage arrays (’988 Patent, col. 1:40-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-6 (Compl. ¶13). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
  • A computer within a data storage system comprising an I/O channel adapter for host requests and a network adapter for network traffic.
  • "Configuration manager software" that enables the I/O channel adapter to decide whether to route a request to cache, to disk, or to reject it.
  • A cache memory and associated cache manager software.
  • Front-end software for handling incoming requests and back-end software for handling disk operations.
  • The back-end software operates "without communication over the I/O channel adapter, thereby separating disk operations from network and I/O traffic."
• The complaint does not specify which dependent claims may be asserted.

U.S. Patent No. 8,225,002 - “Data Storage And Data Sharing In A Network of Heterogenerous Computers,” issued July 17, 2012

• Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on enabling seamless data sharing between different types of computer systems (e.g., UNIX and Windows) connected to the storage network (’002 Patent, col. 8:47-54). It describes a method using "virtual devices" and "translation modules" that allow heterogeneous hosts to access a single copy of a data record, each in its own native format, thus improving interoperability and storage efficiency (’002 Patent, col. 8:55-65, col. 9:1-10).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts claims 1-14 (Compl. ¶18). Independent claims appear to be 1, 3, 4, and 10.
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Cisco's "data storage products and services" generally, without specifying which features of those products are accused of infringing this particular patent (Compl. ¶18).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name. It broadly refers to "data storage products and services that [Defendant] maintained, operated, and administered" (Compl. ¶8, 13, 18).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused instrumentalities are used for "computer network using cached data storage" (Compl. ¶7, 12, 17). No further technical details about the operation or architecture of the accused products are provided in the complaint. The complaint also makes no allegations regarding the commercial importance or market positioning of the unspecified products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references exemplary claim chart tables in Exhibits A, B, and C as support for its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶9, 14, 19). However, these exhibits were not included with the complaint document. As such, a detailed claim-by-claim analysis based on Plaintiff's initial contentions is not possible. The infringement theory is based on the general allegation that Defendant's unspecified "data storage products and services" incorporate the patented technologies for managing distributed cached data storage (Compl. ¶8, 13, 18).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Basis: The primary point of contention will be factual. The complaint's lack of specificity regarding the accused instrumentality raises the question of what evidence Plaintiff will produce to demonstrate that any particular Cisco product or service practices the elements of the asserted claims.
  • Technical Scope for the ’092 Patent: A potential dispute may arise over whether modern data center components map to the claimed elements. For example, a key question is whether a modern converged network adapter, which handles both storage and general network traffic, can be considered to have both a "first interface" for a "dedicated I/O channel" and a "second interface" for a "network" as distinct elements required by the claim.
  • Functional Scope for the ’988 Patent: The infringement analysis for the ’988 patent will raise the question of whether accused Cisco products contain "configuration manager software" that performs the specific three-part routing decision (to cache, to disk, or reject) as claimed. The dispute may center on whether this functionality exists as a discrete module or is performed in a different, more distributed manner in the accused systems.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from ’092 Patent, Claim 1: "dedicated I/O channel"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical for establishing the claimed two-interface structure. Its construction will determine whether the claim is limited to legacy systems with physically distinct I/O (e.g., SCSI) and network (e.g., Ethernet) hardware, or if it can read on modern, converged infrastructures. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation could be dispositive of infringement for a wide range of modern storage products.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the term simply requires a logical, rather than physical, dedication. The specification discusses the purpose of the channels—one for "I/O traffic" and one for "network traffic"—which could support an argument that any logical channel provisioned for I/O is "dedicated" (’092 Patent, col. 5:36-39).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently uses "SCSI channels" as the example for I/O and "Ethernet link" for network traffic, suggesting the patent contemplates technologically distinct channel types (’092 Patent, col. 5:36-38). The term "dedicated" itself, in the context of hardware from that era, often implied a physically separate and specialized path.

Term from ’988 Patent, Claim 1: "configuration manager software for enabling said I/O channel adapter to decide"

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines a specific causal relationship between a software module and a hardware adapter's decision-making process. The infringement analysis will depend on whether an accused system has an identifiable "configuration manager" that directly "enables" the adapter to perform the claimed routing logic.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "enabling...to decide" does not require the configuration manager to make the decision itself, but merely to provide the necessary information or rules (e.g., via the volume access table) that allow the adapter's driver or associated logic to execute the decision (’988 Patent, col. 9:16-20).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites a specific three-option decision: "(i) to route said request to cache, (ii) to route said request to disk, or (iii) to reject said request" (’988 Patent, col. 9:18-20). A party could argue this requires software that explicitly implements this three-pronged logical switch, and anything less or different in function falls outside the claim scope. The patent’s flowcharts depict this as a distinct decisional process controlled by the manager (’988 Patent, Fig. 4).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges direct and indirect infringement of the ’002 patent (Compl. ¶20). For the ’092 and ’988 patents, Plaintiff "reserves the right to amend to assert claims for indirect and willful infringement if discovery reveals an earlier date of Defendants’ knowledge" (Compl. p. 3, fn. 1; p. 4, fn. 2). The complaint provides no specific factual allegations to support the elements of inducement or contributory infringement, such as knowledge or intent.

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not allege willful infringement but reserves the right to do so based on information revealed in discovery, a standard practice in initial pleadings (Compl. p. 3, fn. 1; p. 4, fn. 2; p. 5, fn. 3).

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

• A central issue will be one of evidentiary identification: What specific Cisco products are accused, and what evidence will Plaintiff present to map the architecture and functions of those modern systems onto the specific claim limitations, especially given the absence of the complaint’s supporting exhibits?
• A key technical question will be one of technological congruence: Can the claims, which are rooted in the physical and logical distinctions of late-1990s storage technology (e.g., separate SCSI channels vs. Ethernet networks), be construed to read on the converged, virtualized, and software-defined architectures of contemporary data center products?
• A dispositive legal question will involve claim scope: How will the court construe functional software terms like "configuration manager software"? The outcome may turn on whether such terms are limited to the specific, discrete modules and table-based logic described in the patent’s embodiments or can encompass the more abstracted and distributed control plane functions common in the accused systems.