DCT

1:22-cv-00874

DataCloud Tech LLC v. OVH US LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00874, E.D. Va., 11/08/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Virginia because Defendant OVH US LLC maintains a regular and established place of business in the District and has committed the alleged acts of patent infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud hosting platforms and user management interfaces infringe four patents related to anonymous network communication and remote file system management.
  • Technical Context: The patents address foundational technologies for cloud computing, specifically network-level architectures for anonymizing user traffic and systems for providing users with remote control over server-side file directory structures.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff provided Defendants with "Preliminary Claim Charts" for all four asserted patents on September 28, 2022, constituting pre-suit notice. Notably, a post-complaint ex parte reexamination certificate for U.S. Patent No. 8,762,498, issued on July 12, 2024, canceled all claims of that patent, a development which may render Count IV of the complaint moot.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-04-04 Priority Date for ’959 and ’498 Patents
2002-03-29 Priority Date for ’298 and ’555 Patents
2007-04-24 ’959 Patent Issued
2008-07-08 ’298 Patent Issued
2013-12-24 ’555 Patent Issued
2014-06-24 ’498 Patent Issued
2022-09-28 Plaintiff provided pre-suit notice to Defendants
2022-11-08 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,209,959 - “Apparatus, System, And Method For Communicating To A Network Through A Virtual Domain Providing Anonymity To A Client Communicating On The Network,” issued April 24, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the privacy risks inherent in standard internet protocols like HTTP, where a user's information can be recorded and tracked by servers, leading to unwanted solicitations and monitoring ('959 Patent, col. 1:57-65). Existing solutions like proxy servers are described as deficient because they merely substitute one traceable identity for another ('959 Patent, col. 2:1-7).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a three-component architecture—a "deceiver", a "controller", and a "forwarder"—to create a temporary, session-specific virtual communication channel ('959 Patent, col. 2:31-37). The system intercepts a client’s request, uses the "controller" to resolve the true destination and select a "forwarder", and then "deceives" both the client and the destination server; the client communicates with the "forwarder" believing it is the destination, and the destination server communicates with the "forwarder" believing it is the client, thereby isolating both parties ('959 Patent, col. 4:43-52; FIG. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provided a method for creating dynamic, session-based virtual namespaces to anonymize network activity, an approach designed to be more robust than static proxy servers ('959 Patent, col. 2:49-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
  • Claim 1 is a method claim comprising the essential elements of:
    • In response to a client request to communicate with a destination website, setting up a forwarding session.
    • The session employs a "forwarder" positioned between the client and the destination server to relay packets.
    • The session is implemented such that neither the client nor the destination server is "aware of the employment of the forwarder."
    • A "controller" communicates with the "forwarder" and a domain name server (DNS) to resolve the destination's name and initiate communication with the "forwarder".
    • A "deceiver" receives the client's initial request and initiates the "controller" to query the DNS.
    • The forwarding session is initiated in response to the "controller" receiving the answer from the DNS.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶29).

U.S. Patent No. 7,398,298 - “Remote Access And Retrieval Of Electronic Files,” issued July 8, 2008

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a shortcoming in remote data access systems where users, particularly in a corporate context, have limited ability to manage the underlying file directory structures and lack a mechanism to confirm that data sent to a third party has been successfully delivered ('298 Patent, col. 2:1-11, col. 2:15-25).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a server-based computing application that provides users with not only remote access to files but also "remote management control over the data directory structures" ('298 Patent, col. 11:51-55). The system allows an authenticated user to view directories, select files, deliver them to specified targets, and receive a notification confirming the delivery ('298 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:56-62).
  • Technical Importance: This technology aimed to enhance remote work capabilities by moving beyond simple file retrieval to include direct management of the file system's organization and verified data transmission, a key requirement for enterprise IT systems ('298 Patent, col. 2:26-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 13 (Compl. ¶40).
  • Claim 13 is a method claim comprising the essential elements of:
    • Receiving a request for "remote management control of data directory structures."
    • Processing the request by providing directory structure information from a profile data store after determining accessibility.
    • Allowing a user to select a single directory structure from a plurality of structures for modification.
    • Delivering desired data to identified delivery targets.
    • Generating at least one notification of the delivery.
    • Determining if the requested data is accessible based on the profile data store and sending a confirmation of delivery.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶41).

U.S. Patent No. 8,615,555 - "Remote Access And Retrieval Of Electronic Files," issued December 24, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family as the ’298 Patent, describes a method for remote data directory management. It specifically claims a multi-step process where a requestor can view a directory structure, request a file from within it to be sent to a specified electronic address not associated with the requestor, and then receive a message confirming the file has been sent ('555 Patent, col. 10:51-col. 11:12).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶52).
  • Accused Features: The "User Portal" is accused of providing a method for managing directory structures and sending files to third parties with notification (Compl. ¶53).

U.S. Patent No. 8,762,498 - "Apparatus, System, And Method For Communicating To A Network Through A Virtual Domain," issued June 24, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family as the ’959 Patent, describes a method where a controller determines a destination IP address based on a "virtual namespace destination address" (e.g., a custom domain), establishes a correlation between that destination and a forwarder's IP address, and instructs the forwarder to send the request data to the destination ('498 Patent, col. 6:51-65). As noted previously, all claims of this patent were canceled in a 2024 ex parte reexamination.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶64).
  • Accused Features: The "OVHcloud Website Hosting" services are accused of determining and correlating destination and forwarder IP addresses based on virtual names (Compl. ¶65).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "OVHcloud's website hosting platforms" (including "Bare-Metal Servers," "Public Cloud," and "Hosted Private Cloud") and "OVHcloud's Management Interfaces (the 'User Portal')" (Compl. ¶¶19-20).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the OVHcloud Website Hosting platforms provide services to customers in the United States, including Virginia (Compl. ¶¶13-14). Functionally, these platforms are accused of implementing a method of anonymized communication by using components like front-end server switches, firewalls, and routers to function as the "forwarder", "controller", and "deceiver" described in the '959 Patent (Compl. ¶29). The User Portal is alleged to be an interface that allows users to manage remote data, including querying a database for permissions, selecting directory structures, and receiving notifications of data delivery (Compl. ¶41). A marketing image depicts the accused "Management Interfaces" as providing "all the tools you need to manage your cloud resources" through various graphical and command-line interfaces (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’959 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
in response to a request by a client to initiate communication with a destination website; A client sends a request (e.g., "Client Hello") to initiate communication with a destination website (e.g., www.ovhcloud.com). ¶29 col. 5:47-49
setting up a forwarding session...employing a forwarder disposed between the client and the destination server to forward packets... A forwarding session is set up using a "front-end server switch" as the forwarder, disposed between the client's internet device and the destination's WWW server. ¶29 col. 5:50-54
wherein the forwarding session is set up and implemented such that neither the client or the destination server is aware of the employment of the forwarder; The client and destination server are unaware of the forwarder because the connection is established in a way that makes them appear to be communicating directly with each other via different IP addresses. ¶29 col. 5:58-62
employing a controller configured to communicate with the forwarder and a domain name server... A "firewall" acts as the controller, communicating with the "front-end server switch" (the forwarder) and a DNS (the domain name server) to resolve the website name. ¶29 col. 6:62-65
employing a deceiver configured to communicate with the controller and the client, wherein the deceiver receives the request by the client... A "router" acts as the deceiver, receiving the client's request from the internet and initiating the "firewall" (the controller) to query the DNS. ¶29 col. 7:3-9

’298 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving at least one request by a computing application...for remote management control of data directory structures from participating users... The User Portal provides a method for remote control of data directory structures, such as webpages and functions accessible to discrete users. ¶41 col. 11:51-55
processing the request...by providing data directory structure information if deemed accessible from data stored in a profile store... The system uses a "profile data store (e.g., a secure SQL server/database)" containing permission information, which is queried to determine a user's access rights. ¶41 col. 11:56-61
wherein a single directory structure from among a plurality...is selected by each of the participating users for modification... A user selects a single directory structure for modification (e.g., by choosing from available roles) from among multiple structures associated with the profile data store. ¶41 col. 12:1-5
delivering the user requested data and sending a confirmation of the delivery. The system delivers the requested data to the user over the network and provides a confirmation notice. ¶41 col. 12:14-17

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The infringement allegations for the '959 Patent map the patent's conceptual roles of "deceiver", "controller", and "forwarder" onto general-purpose network hardware like a "router", "firewall", and "server switch" (Compl. ¶29). A central point of contention may be whether these standard components, in their ordinary operation within a cloud hosting environment, actually perform the specific, coordinated, and distinct functions as required by the claims.
  • Technical Questions: For the '298 Patent, the claim requires providing "remote management control of data directory structures" (Compl. ¶41). A technical question is whether the accused User Portal's functionality, described as managing user permissions and roles, constitutes "control over" the directory structures themselves (e.g., creating, renaming, moving folders) or merely governs access rights to a static structure, which may fall short of the claimed "management control."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from '959 Patent, Claim 1: "aware of the employment of the forwarder"

  • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is the technological core of the patent's anonymity claim. The infringement case hinges on whether the accused system architecturally ensures that neither the end-user's device nor the destination server can detect the intermediary forwarding element.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint alleges this is met simply because the client and server have "a direct TCP connection between a local IP address and a client IP address, each being different" (Compl. ¶29), suggesting any architecture that masks the true endpoints could suffice.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification explains that the client is "deceived into thinking that the forwarder (107) IP address is actually the destination website server (108)" ('959 Patent, col. 4:43-46). This may support a narrower construction requiring a specific act of IP address substitution, rather than just a general lack of awareness.

Term from '298 Patent, Claim 13: "remote management control of data directory structures"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the invention's primary capability. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute may turn on whether managing user roles and permissions, as alleged in the complaint (Compl. ¶41), is equivalent to the "management control" of the structures themselves.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's background criticizes systems that lack "data management and storage control (e.g. control over the directory structure)" ('298 Patent, col. 2:17-18), suggesting the term was intended to have a broad meaning encompassing all aspects of management.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An exemplary embodiment in the patent depicts a user selecting from a list of pre-existing directories (e.g., "WORK/QUARRY/POWERPOINTFILES") rather than creating new ones ('298 Patent, FIG. 9A). This could be used to argue that "management control" is limited to actions performed within an existing, defined directory hierarchy.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement, it alleges Plaintiff provided pre-suit notice of infringement to Defendants via preliminary claim charts on September 28, 2022 (Compl. ¶¶30, 42, 54, 66). The prayer for relief also requests that the Court declare the case "exceptional" and award attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. ¶70.C), which suggests an intent to prove at least post-notice willfulness.

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

  • A core issue will be one of functional mapping: can the distinct, purpose-built roles of a "deceiver", "controller", and "forwarder", as described in the '959 patent family, be found in the operation of general-purpose network hardware like routers, firewalls, and switches within the accused cloud hosting architecture?
  • A key definitional question will be one of scope of control: does the "remote management control of data directory structures" claimed in the '298 patent family require the ability to create and modify the directory architecture itself, or is it satisfied by the user- and permission-management functions of the accused User Portal?
  • A threshold procedural issue will be the impact of reexamination: given the post-filing cancellation of all claims of the '498 patent, the court will need to address the viability of Count IV, which is likely to be deemed moot and dismissed.