DCT

7:25-cv-00252

Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Southwest Airlines Co

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00252, W.D. Tex., 05/30/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including operations at multiple airports, and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s backend IT infrastructure and related services, which utilize technologies like Kubernetes and Hadoop, infringe a patent related to hosting multiple, customized computing clusters for different clients.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to methods for managing, monitoring, and providing secure, isolated access to customized computing clusters, a foundational architecture for modern large-scale data processing and cloud computing services.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that it was filed as a separate action following a partial opposition to a motion to amend a complaint in a related case, Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al v. Southwest Airlines Co., Case No. 7:24-cv-00277-ADA. Plaintiff states its intent to move for consolidation with the related action.

A. Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-10-30 '841 Patent Priority Date
2010-10-26 '841 Patent Issue Date
2025-05-30 Complaint Filing Date

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

A. 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 describes the significant cost, complexity, and resource burden for companies to own, operate, and maintain their own High Performance Computing (HPC) clusters. It notes that this "unacceptable burden" often places the benefits of cluster computing out of reach for many organizations. (’841 Patent, col. 2:45-53).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a central hosting provider manages a plurality of computing clusters, each of which can be uniquely customized for different clients and their specific computing tasks. (’841 Patent, col. 2:55-67). The system uses gateways and firewalls to provide secure, isolated access for each remote client to their specific, hosted cluster, while a central monitoring system oversees the operational health of all clusters. (’841 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 3:31-49). This architecture allows clients to leverage customized computing power without owning the underlying physical infrastructure.
    • Technical Importance: The described system provides a framework for offering what is now commonly known as Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS), where computing resources are provided and managed by a third party and accessed on demand by end-users. (’841 Patent, col. 2:45-53).

  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, referring only to "Example '841 Patent Claims" in an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶27, ¶37). The likely lead asserted claim is independent claim 1.

    • Independent Claim 1 recites a computer system for hosting computing clusters for clients, comprising the key elements of:
      • A private communications network linked to a public one.
      • A "first cluster" with a "first configuration" for a "first client task."
      • A "second cluster" with a "second configuration" for a "second client task," where the second configuration "differs from the first."
      • A monitoring system that monitors operations of both clusters, which itself includes a "main monitor" and individual "monitors for each node" to check for hardware and software problems.
    • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶34).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint broadly identifies the "Accused Products and Services" as including Southwest’s "In-Flight and Ground Connectivity, and Internet Hotspots," which are supported by backend technologies including, but not to, "Kubernetes, Kafka, Docker, Spark, [and] Hadoop." (Compl. ¶23).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that these backend technologies are "used and managed by Southwest to enable the various products and services that Southwest offers to its customers." (Compl. ¶23). The complaint asserts the commercial importance of the accused services by noting, for example, that Southwest has a 44% share of airline seats at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport. (Compl. ¶15). The complaint provides a screenshot of Southwest's interactive route map to illustrate the airline's presence in Texas, including in the Western District. (Compl. p. 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit 2" that was not filed with the complaint; therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be provided. (Compl. ¶37, ¶38).

The complaint’s narrative theory of infringement alleges that Southwest’s internal use of technologies like Kubernetes and Hadoop to support its various business operations constitutes a "system for hosting computing clusters." (Compl. ¶23, ¶29). The core allegation is that Southwest makes, utilizes, and tests this internal IT infrastructure, which allegedly contains all the elements of the patented system, including multiple, customized clusters and a monitoring system. (Compl. ¶27).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A principal issue will be whether Southwest’s internal IT infrastructure, used for its own operational purposes, can be considered a system for "hosting computing clusters for clients" as claimed in the patent. The patent’s specification appears to frame the invention as a business-to-business service model where a hosting company serves external "clients." (’841 Patent, col. 2:45-53). The case may turn on whether Southwest can be considered both the "host" and the "client" under a viable construction of the claim terms.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify how Southwest’s infrastructure embodies the "first cluster" and "second cluster" with "differing" configurations. A technical question will be whether Southwest operates architecturally distinct clusters for different tasks, or whether it runs various workloads on a single, consolidated infrastructure platform (e.g., a single Kubernetes environment). The evidence required to prove that a multi-tenant software platform constitutes multiple, distinct "clusters" as recited in the claims will be a central point of contention. (Compl. ¶23).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "hosting computing clusters for clients" (from Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The applicability of the patent to Southwest's internal operations hinges on this phrase. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the patent is limited to a third-party service provider model or if it can also read on an enterprise's internal IT operations.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "clients" as being legally or commercially separate entities from the host. The specification's use of "users or 'clients'" could suggest the term is meant to be flexible and could encompass internal users or departments. (’841 Patent, col. 2:46-47).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background and summary repeatedly frame the invention as a solution for organizations that do not wish to "purchase a cluster," "host the cluster, and manage it on their premises," strongly implying a relationship between a customer and an external hosting provider. (’841 Patent, col. 2:1-5, col. 2:62-67).

  • The Term: "a first cluster... a second cluster" (from Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The infringement analysis requires identifying at least two distinct "clusters." The definition will be critical to determining whether different virtualized environments or containerized workloads running on a single physical infrastructure (like a Kubernetes platform) meet this limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent offers a general definition of a cluster as "a group of two or more nodes that have the capability of exchanging data," which could support a finding that logically separate workloads constitute distinct clusters. (’841 Patent, col. 10:27-29).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s embodiments, particularly Figure 2, depict "Cluster 1" and "Cluster 2" as discrete units, each with its own private network and connected via a separate gateway to a shared company network. This architecture suggests a higher degree of separation is required than simply running different software on the same platform. (’841 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 5:21-35).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by "encouraging and instructing its partners, vendors, customers, and/or third parties to infringe" by offering services that rely on the accused backend systems. (Compl. ¶33). It also alleges contributory infringement by providing software and technologies "especially made or especially adapted for use in infringement" that have "no substantial non-infringing uses." (Compl. ¶35).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges "Willful Blindness," stating Southwest "knew of the '841 Patent, or should have known of the '841 Patent, but was willfully blind to its existence." (Compl. ¶32). It does not plead specific facts demonstrating pre-suit knowledge.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "hosting computing clusters for clients," which the patent describes in the context of a third-party service provider model, be construed to cover a company’s own internal IT infrastructure that supports its own business operations?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: what specific evidence will show that Southwest’s use of modern, consolidated IT platforms like Kubernetes creates "a first cluster" and "a second cluster" with "differing" physical or logical configurations, as opposed to simply running different applications on a single, versatile cluster?