Leaseweb USA Inc v. Touchpoint Projection Innovations LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Leaseweb USA, Inc. (Delaware corporation, principal place of business in Virginia)
  • Defendant: Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC (Wyoming corporation)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Allen & Overy LLP
• Case Identification: 3:23-cv-00143, E.D. Va., 02/28/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Leaseweb, which resides in the Eastern District of Virginia, alleges that venue is proper because Defendant Touchpoint purposefully directed enforcement activities at Leaseweb within the district by hiring local counsel in Alexandria, Virginia, to investigate infringement and send a demand letter.
• Core Dispute: This is a declaratory judgment action in which Plaintiff Leaseweb seeks a court ruling that its DDoS Protection service does not infringe Defendant Touchpoint's patent related to a network gateway that analyzes and acts upon specific types of network protocol data.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns network security and traffic management, specifically methods for inspecting data packets at a gateway between different types of networks to identify and respond to potentially malicious or problematic traffic.
• Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by a demand letter sent by Defendant's counsel to Plaintiff on February 21, 2023, alleging infringement of the patent-in-suit. The complaint notes that Defendant is alleged to be a non-practicing entity.

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,265,089 - "Network Gateway With Enhanced Requesting"

• Issued: September 11, 2012.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in conventional networking where data is transferred from a "connection-based" network (like a Wide Area Network or WAN) to a "connectionless" network (like a Local Area Network or LAN). This often involves bundling smaller data packets into a larger "multiple packet data unit" (MPDU) for transit across the WAN. At the gateway to the LAN, this MPDU is unbundled, and in the process, the MPDU's header information—containing low-level network protocol data—is "effectively discarded and lost" ('089 Patent, col. 4:63-67, col. 8:58-60).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a gateway that, instead of discarding this MPDU header information, actively uses it. The gateway is designed to receive an MPDU, disaggregate it, and crucially, "collect selected network protocol data from the first MPDU" that is not present in the final, smaller data units. The gateway then applies a "first rule" to this collected data to "make a responsive reaction," such as filtering traffic, regulating its speed, or alerting an administrator ('089 Patent, Abstract; col. 17:13-24). The system is depicted in figures showing a "WaGER gateway" (103) positioned between a connection-based network and connectionless networks ('089 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach proposes a method for network security and management that leverages protocol information typically discarded at network boundaries, potentially enabling the detection of malicious activity (like denial-of-service attacks) based on patterns in low-level data that are otherwise lost during de-encapsulation ('089 Patent, col. 12:25-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint primarily contests infringement of limitations found in independent claim 1.
• Independent Claim 1 (System Claim) 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 a plurality of smaller data units ("DUs").
  • The "gateway" is further structured to "collect selected network protocol data from the first MPDU," where this data is "not included in any of the plurality of DUs" and relates "exclusively to network protocols."
  • The "gateway" is also structured to "apply a first rule" to this collected data.
  • Finally, the "gateway" is structured to "selectively make a responsive reaction" based on the application of the rule.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, as it is a declaratory judgment action seeking a finding of non-infringement of all claims (Compl. ¶31).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Plaintiff's "DDoS Protection feature" (the "Accused Product") (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides very few technical details about the Accused Product's operation. It identifies the product as a service offered by Leaseweb, a provider of cloud hosting products (Compl. ¶6). The functionality in dispute is its role in protecting against Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks, which is the context in which Defendant has alleged infringement (Compl. ¶23). The complaint does not describe how the DDoS Protection feature technically operates, focusing instead on arguing why it does not practice the specific steps of the asserted patent claims (Compl. ¶28).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart provided by the Defendant in a demand letter but states that the chart was omitted from the court filing (Compl. ¶17 & fn. 2). Therefore, the infringement allegations are analyzed based on the Plaintiff's narrative rebuttal.

The central dispute, as framed by Leaseweb's complaint for declaratory judgment, is a denial that its Accused Product performs the specific sequence of operations required by the claims of the ’089 Patent. Leaseweb alleges its product does not practice numerous claim limitations (Compl. ¶28). The core of its non-infringement position appears to be that its DDoS Protection feature does not perform the claimed method of disaggregating an "MPDU," collecting otherwise-discarded protocol data from that MPDU's header, and then applying rules to that specific data to generate a response.

Leaseweb specifically denies that its system includes a "gateway [that] 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" (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 60). This suggests Leaseweb's position is that its DDoS mitigation techniques, whatever they may be, do not rely on analyzing the specific type of "lost" or "shed" low-level protocol data that is the focal point of the patented invention. Instead, the implication is that the Accused Product may operate on standard packet data that is not discarded during transit, creating a fundamental mismatch with the patent's core inventive concept.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "collect selected network protocol data from the first MPDU... not included in any of the plurality of DUs"

• Context and Importance: This limitation is the central feature of the invention. The infringement analysis will likely turn on whether the Accused Product "collects" and analyzes protocol data that is truly "discarded" or "lost" upon de-encapsulation, as described in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from conventional firewalls or inspection systems that analyze header data that remains with the packet.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines "network protocol data" broadly to include "any data in a packet or MPDU that is extraneous to the payload" ('089 Patent, col. 16:17-20). This could be argued to cover a wide range of metadata.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly contrasts this "collected" data with the data that travels on with the final packets, describing it as information that in conventional gateways is "effectively discarded and lost" ('089 Patent, col. 4:65-67). The claim language itself requires the data to be "not included in any of the plurality of DUs," which strongly suggests it refers only to data that is stripped away during the disaggregation process.

• The Term: "MPDU" (multiple packet data unit)

• Context and Importance: The claims are architecturally dependent on the presence of an MPDU that is aggregated and then disaggregated. The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether the data structures used in Leaseweb's modern cloud network can be properly characterized as the "MPDUs" envisioned by the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not limit the term to a single protocol, stating that when a packet is "bundled with other packets into an MPDU," it may include various types of data ('089 Patent, col. 3:53-56).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, such as a "SONET type MPDU" ('089 Patent, col. 16:51-53), and describes the MPDU in the context of traversing a "connection-oriented WAN" ('089 Patent, col. 1:35-38). This may support a construction that limits the term to data structures used in more traditional, connection-oriented networking environments, potentially creating a mismatch with modern packet-switched internet architectures.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: Leaseweb seeks a judicial declaration that it does not indirectly infringe the '089 patent (Compl. ¶31). The complaint does not, however, detail any specific allegations of indirect infringement made by the Defendant.
• Willful Infringement: There is no allegation of willful infringement, as this is a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement filed by the accused infringer. Leaseweb does, however, ask the court to find that this is an "exceptional case" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which could entitle it to attorneys' fees, suggesting it believes the Defendant's infringement allegations are baseless (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶B).

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

• A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Does Leaseweb's modern, cloud-based DDoS Protection feature utilize the specific networking architecture recited in the '089 patent, which involves the aggregation and subsequent disaggregation of packets into a "Multiple Packet Data Unit" (MPDU) at a gateway? The patent's focus on technologies like SONET raises the question of whether its claims read on the packet handling methods used in today's internet infrastructure.
• A second key issue will be one of functional distinction: The case will likely hinge on whether the Accused Product performs the invention's central function: "collecting" and analyzing protocol data that is "not included" in the final data packets and would otherwise be "discarded". A crucial evidentiary question will be whether Leaseweb's system analyzes this specific type of "shed" data, or if it performs more conventional packet inspection on header information that is never separated from the underlying data unit.