DCT
1:23-cv-00271
Leaseweb USA Inc v. Touchpoint Projection Innovations LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Leaseweb USA, Inc. (Delaware / Virginia)
- Defendant: Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC (Wyoming)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Allen & Overy LLP
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00271, E.D. Va., 02/28/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Plaintiff Leaseweb's principal place of business being located in the district, and on Defendant Touchpoint having retained counsel within the district to investigate and assert its patent rights against Leaseweb.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff Leaseweb seeks a declaratory judgment that its DDoS Protection services do not infringe Defendant Touchpoint's patent, which relates to a network gateway that analyzes low-level protocol data to implement security rules.
- Technical Context: The technology involves methods for enhancing network security at a gateway by inspecting data that is typically discarded during protocol translation, enabling more robust filtering of malicious traffic like Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attacks.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed in response to a demand letter sent by Defendant's counsel to Plaintiff on February 21, 2023. The letter alleged infringement of the patent-in-suit and, according to the complaint, was accompanied by a limitation-by-limitation claim chart.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-09-04 | '089 Patent Priority Date |
| 2012-09-11 | '089 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-02-21 | Defendant sends Demand Letter to Plaintiff |
| 2023-02-28 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,265,089, "Networking Gateway With Enhanced Requesting," issued September 11, 2012.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes that when data is transferred between different types of networks (e.g., from a connection-based WAN to a connectionless LAN), it is often bundled into a "multiple packet data unit" (MPDU) for transit. At the destination gateway, this MPDU is unbundled back into individual packets. During this unbundling, the MPDU's header information, which contains "low level network protocol data," is conventionally "discarded and lost" (’089 Patent, col. 3:62-4:4).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a gateway that, instead of discarding this low-level data, actively "dissects" and analyzes it (’089 Patent, col. 5:36-40). The gateway applies a set of rules to this otherwise-lost information to determine if a "responsive reaction" is necessary, such as blocking the communication, slowing it down, or alerting an administrator (’089 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:44-6:4).
- Technical Importance: This method allows for security analysis based on data from the lower levels of the network protocol stack (e.g., physical and data link layers), which the patent suggests can be a robust way to identify malicious activity like denial-of-service attacks or spoofing that might evade conventional, higher-level filters (’089 Patent, col. 6:40-43; col. 12:25-33).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of "any claim" of the '089 patent (Compl. ¶1). It specifically lists language from independent claims 1 (a system claim) and 7 (a gateway computer claim) as not being practiced by the accused product (Compl. ¶28).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a computer communication network system comprising:
- A source computer, an MPDU aggregating module, a connection-based network, a gateway, a receiver-side connectionless network, and a receiver computer.
- The gateway is structured to receive a first MPDU from the connection-based network and disaggregate it into smaller data units (DUs).
- The gateway is structured to collect "selected network protocol data" from the first MPDU, where that data was part of the MPDU but is not included in the resulting DUs.
- The gateway is structured to apply a "first rule" to this collected data.
- The gateway is structured to make a "responsive reaction" based on the application of the rule.
- Independent Claim 7 recites a gateway computer comprising:
- A "gateway module" for receiving and disaggregating an MPDU.
- An "enhanced requesting module" for collecting the selected network protocol data from the MPDU, applying a rule to it, and making a responsive reaction.
- The complaint does not specify whether dependent claims were asserted but seeks a judgment of non-infringement of the entire patent (’089 Patent, col. 16:47-18:24; Compl. ¶31).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is Plaintiff's "DDoS Protection feature" (Compl. ¶2).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the Accused Product only as a feature that provides protection against Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attacks for Plaintiff's cloud hosting customers (Compl. ¶¶2, 6, 24). The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement contention is based on an "investigation and analysis of documents and other disclosures" available on the Leaseweb website (Compl. ¶23). The complaint does not provide specific technical details regarding the architecture or operation of the DDoS Protection feature. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. Instead, it makes blanket allegations of non-infringement by quoting numerous claim limitations that the Accused Product allegedly does not practice (Compl. ¶28). The table below summarizes these negative allegations as they relate to independent claim 1.
'089 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a computer communication network system comprising: a source computer, an MPDU aggregating module, a connection-based network, a gateway, a receiver-side connectionless network, and a receiver computer | The Accused Product does not include or practice this system configuration. | ¶28 | col. 15:46-51 |
| the gateway is structured... to disaggregate the first MPDU into a plurality of smaller data units (DUs) | The Accused Product does not perform the step of disaggregating an MPDU into smaller DUs. | ¶28 | col. 17:1-5 |
| the gateway is structured... to collect selected network protocol data from the first MPDU, with the selected network protocol data including at least some network protocol data included in the first MPDU and not included in any of the plurality of DUs | The Accused Product does not collect network protocol data that is part of an MPDU but is excluded from the subsequent disaggregated data units. | ¶28 | col. 17:13-19 |
| the gateway is further structured... to apply a first rule to the selected network protocol data that has been collected by the gateway | The Accused Product does not apply a rule to the specific type of collected network protocol data as required by the claim. | ¶28 | col. 17:23-26 |
| the gateway is further structured... to selectively make a responsive reaction based, at least in part, upon the application of the first rule applied by the gateway to the selected network protocol data | The Accused Product does not make a responsive reaction based on the application of such a rule to such collected data. | ¶28 | col. 17:27-32 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A central factual dispute will be whether Leaseweb's DDoS Protection feature operates in the manner described by the patent. Does it function at a network layer where "MPDUs" are received and "disaggregated"? Does it analyze protocol data that is stripped during a de-encapsulation process, or does it use other methods for threat detection? The complaint's conclusory denials provide no evidence on these points.
- Scope Questions: The dispute raises the question of whether Leaseweb's general DDoS mitigation techniques can be characterized as performing the specific sequence of steps required by the claims. For example, does Leaseweb's system "collect selected network protocol data... not included in any of the plurality of DUs," or does it analyze data that remains with the packets?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "MPDU" (multiple packet data unit)
Context and Importance: The claimed invention is fundamentally based on the processing of an "MPDU" at a gateway. If the Accused Product does not process a data structure that falls within the proper construction of "MPDU," there may be no literal infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could confine the patent's applicability to specific network architectures.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a formal definition of "MPDU" but describes it in the background as a unit into which a data packet is "bundled... with other data packets" (’089 Patent, col. 1:47-50). This general description could support a construction that covers various forms of aggregated network data.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently discusses the MPDU in the specific context of traversing a "connection-oriented WAN" before being unbundled to enter a "receiver side LAN" (’089 Patent, col. 1:40-55). An exemplary embodiment specifies a "SONET type MPDU" (’089 Patent, col. 17:51-52). This context may support a narrower construction limiting the term to data units used in specific WAN technologies like SONET.
The Term: "collect selected network protocol data... not included in any of the plurality of DUs"
Context and Importance: This term defines the unique data that the patented gateway analyzes—information that is "lost" in conventional systems (’089 Patent, col. 11:60-61). The infringement analysis will turn on whether Leaseweb's system collects and analyzes this specific category of data.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: This language could be argued to cover any situation where header information from an aggregated data structure is analyzed but not passed down to the constituent parts after processing.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the collected data as "low level network protocol data" (’089 Patent, col. 5:25-26) and provides a specific diagram (Figure 6) showing the "MPDU header" (404), which contains "physical link layer" and "data link layer" information (412, 414), being separated from the resulting packets. This suggests the term may be construed more narrowly to mean protocol data from OSI Layers 1 and 2 that is discarded upon de-encapsulation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that it does not indirectly infringe the ’089 Patent, either through inducement or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶31). However, it offers no specific facts to rebut any potential allegations of indirect infringement.
- Willful Infringement: As a declaratory judgment action, the complaint does not address willfulness. However, it does establish that Defendant notified Plaintiff of the alleged infringement via a demand letter dated February 21, 2023 (Compl. ¶21). This notice could form the basis for a willfulness claim should Defendant file a counterclaim for infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical operation: Does Leaseweb’s "DDoS Protection feature" function by receiving and "disaggregating" an "MPDU" from a connection-based network, and then analyzing "low level network protocol data" stripped from the MPDU header, as the patent requires? Or does it employ a different architecture for threat detection that falls outside the claimed method?
- A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: Will the term "MPDU" be construed broadly to encompass any form of aggregated network data, or will it be limited by the patent’s explicit examples to data units within specific connection-oriented WAN technologies like SONET? The outcome of this claim construction could be dispositive.
- A central evidentiary question will be one of proof: The complaint makes only conclusory denials of infringement without providing technical evidence. The case will likely depend on what facts emerge during discovery regarding the precise architecture and functionality of Leaseweb's accused system.