DCT
6:24-cv-00577
Wallace v. Cerf
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Jennifer Kay Wallace (Colorado), Pro Se
- Defendant: Vinton Gray Cerf (Virginia); Google LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
- Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00577, W.D. Tex., 02/25/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the Western District of Texas based on allegations that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff asserts state law claims, including violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraudulent concealment, alleging that Google developed its Spanner database system incorporating technology from a patent co-owned by Plaintiff after reviewing the patent under the guise of licensing discussions.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on technology for synchronizing time across geographically distributed computer systems, a critical function for ensuring the consistency and reliability of modern large-scale databases.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff engaged in licensing discussions with Defendant Cerf, then at Google, regarding the patent-in-suit between 2005 and 2007, which concluded with Google expressing no interest. The complaint asserts state law tort claims rather than direct patent infringement claims. This procedural posture suggests that federal preemption, which can bar state law claims that are equivalent to patent infringement claims, may become a relevant issue. The complaint also indicates the patent was assigned to Copernicus2 LLC in 2019, and Plaintiff is a "non-voting bare transferee," which may raise questions regarding Plaintiff's standing to assert rights related to the patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-09-17 | ’586 Patent Priority Date |
| 2001-11-27 | ’586 Patent Issue Date |
| 2005-2007 | Alleged licensing negotiations between Wallace and Cerf/Google |
| 2007 | Google allegedly represents its non-interest in the technology |
| post-2007 | Alleged development of Google's Spanner database system |
| 2019 | ’586 Patent assigned to Copernicus2 LLC |
| 2022-2024 | Plaintiff allegedly makes inquiries to Google regarding infringement |
| 2024-11-04 | Original complaint filing date |
| 2025-02-24 | DTPA notice served |
| 2025-02-25 | Second Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,324,586 - System for Synchronizing Multiple Computers with a Common Timing Reference, issued November 27, 2001
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of synchronizing the internal clocks of multiple interacting computers, particularly over a network. (U.S. Patent No. 6324586, col. 1:15-26). It notes that without precise synchronization, data transmission speeds are limited by "traffic jams" and buffering delays, and that existing protocols like the Network Time Protocol (NTP) provide insufficient accuracy for certain high-performance applications. (col. 1:45-53, col. 1:56-62).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that uses a global satellite system, such as GPS, to generate a single, highly accurate "absolute time reference signal." (col. 2:60-65). This reference signal is then distributed to a network of computers, where an interface card in each computer uses the signal to synchronize the computer's internal master clock, thereby enabling highly coordinated, near-instantaneous data transfer among all computers in the system. (col. 6:15-30).
- Technical Importance: By providing a common timing reference with nanosecond-level accuracy, the invention aimed to solve bottlenecks in distributed computing and enable massively parallel processing across standard networked computers. (col. 4:50-53, col. 7:60-67).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, but alleges generally that the accused product incorporates the patent's claims. (Compl. ¶10). Independent Claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
- Essential elements of Independent Claim 1:
- means for receiving uncorrected output signals from at least two satellites of the satellite system;
- means for processing and correlating said uncorrected satellite signals and outputting a single corrected absolute time reference signal;
- linking means for directing said reference signal to said computer;
- means disposed in each said computer for receiving said absolute time reference signal; and
- means for utilizing said absolute time reference signal as an internal reference master clock to create a discrete clock cycle for said computer referenced to said single absolute time reference signal.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Google's Spanner database system. (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Spanner is a database system developed "post-2007" that incorporates the claims of the ’586 Patent. (Compl. ¶10).
- The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the Spanner system. The core of the allegation is that Spanner’s functionality relies on the patented method of time synchronization to manage its distributed architecture. (Compl. ¶10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed infringement allegations. The analysis below is based on the general allegation in the complaint that Google's Spanner database system incorporates the patent's claims.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| means for receiving uncorrected output signals from at least two satellites of the satellite system; | The complaint alleges the Spanner system incorporates the claimed invention but does not specify the mechanism for receiving satellite signals. | ¶10 | col. 5:11-20 |
| means for processing and correlating said uncorrected satellite signals and outputting a single corrected absolute time reference signal; | The complaint alleges the Spanner system incorporates the claimed invention but does not specify the mechanism for processing satellite signals to generate a time reference. | ¶10 | col. 6:3-12 |
| linking means for directing said reference signal to said computer; | The complaint alleges the Spanner system incorporates the claimed invention but does not describe how a time reference signal is directed to computers within the system. | ¶10 | col. 6:13-15 |
| means disposed in each said computer for receiving said absolute time reference signal; | The complaint alleges the Spanner system incorporates the claimed invention but does not describe the specific components within Google's servers for receiving the time reference. | ¶10 | col. 6:15-18 |
| means for utilizing said absolute time reference signal as an internal reference master clock to create a discrete clock cycle for said computer... | The complaint alleges the Spanner system incorporates the claimed invention but does not detail how the time reference is used to synchronize the internal clocks of servers. | ¶10 | col. 6:18-24 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 is a "means-plus-function" claim, governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its scope is limited to the specific structures disclosed in the patent's specification for performing the claimed functions, and their equivalents. A central question is whether the architecture of Google's Spanner system (and its associated TrueTime API) contains structures that are the same as or equivalent to the "pre-processor" (18) and "multiple antenna assembly" (16) detailed in the ’586 patent. (col. 6:3-12).
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be what evidence exists that Spanner's time synchronization relies on the specific method claimed—namely, receiving and processing signals from at least two satellites to create an absolute time reference. The court may need to determine if Spanner's use of a combination of datacenter-based atomic clocks and GPS receivers falls within the scope of the structures disclosed in the patent, which focus heavily on a GPS-centric architecture.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The construction of the means-plus-function limitations will be dispositive.
- The Term: "means for processing and correlating said uncorrected satellite signals and outputting a single corrected absolute time reference signal"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core of the invention: the generation of the master timing signal. The construction of this term will determine what specific hardware and software configurations are covered by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will likely define the boundary between infringement and non-infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that the "means" should be construed to cover any system that performs the function of using satellite signals to generate a precise time reference, as this captures the spirit of the invention.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific corresponding structure for this function: a "pre-processor" (18) that performs "comparison 46, averaging 48 and error correction 50" on signals received from a "multiple antenna assembly" (16). (col. 6:3-12; Fig. 4). A defendant would argue that the claim is limited to this specific pre-processor architecture and its structural equivalents, and does not cover different methods of generating time, such as those relying primarily on land-based atomic clocks that are merely disciplined by satellite signals.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a cause of action for indirect patent infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not plead willfulness under U.S. patent law. However, it alleges facts that would be relevant to such a claim, asserting that Google had pre-suit knowledge of the ’586 Patent as early as 2005 due to licensing negotiations. (Compl. ¶¶ 7-9). These allegations form the basis for the complaint's request for treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. (Compl. p. 5, ¶12).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue is procedural and jurisdictional: are the Plaintiff's state law tort claims, which are founded on allegations of patent misappropriation, preempted by federal patent law? A related threshold question is whether the Plaintiff, as a "non-voting bare transferee" of a patent owned by an LLC, has standing to bring these claims.
- Should the case proceed to the technical merits, a dispositive issue will be one of claim construction and equivalence: can the means-plus-function claim limitations, which are tied to specific GPS-based hardware disclosed in the ’586 patent, be construed to cover the architecture of Google's Spanner database and its TrueTime API, which may use a different combination of time sources and processing methods?
- A central evidentiary question will be what proof can be shown that Google's Spanner system contains structures that are identical or structurally equivalent to those disclosed in the patent's specification for performing the claimed time synchronization functions. The lack of specific factual allegations in the complaint suggests this will be a focus of discovery.