Invincible IP LLC v. F5 Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Invincible IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: F5, Inc. (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Mann Law Group PLLC; The Mort Law Firm, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:22-cv-01368, W.D. Wash., 09/27/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Washington because the Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s BIG-IQ Centralized Management system infringes a patent related to dynamic resource management in cloud computing environments.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for optimizing the allocation of limited computing resources (e.g., processing power, memory) among multiple virtual machines in a cloud environment.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,635,134 - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN A CLOUD COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,635,134, RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN A CLOUD COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT, issued April 25, 2017 (’134 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In a cloud computing environment, multiple virtual machines (VMs) compete for limited, shared resources like processors and memory. It is difficult to determine which VMs should have priority to use these resources, especially as their needs change. (’134 Patent, col. 1:18-28).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-tiered method for managing VM priority. First, it determines the resource consumption rate for VMs and prioritizes them using a "first resource management scheme." Then, it detects if the consumption rate changes beyond a certain threshold. If it does, the system reprioritizes the VMs using a "second resource management scheme," which may involve migrating a high-demand VM to alternate resources outside the immediate cloud environment. (’134 Patent, col. 1:31-col. 2:12; Fig. 4). This allows the system to adapt to changing workloads dynamically.
• Technical Importance: This adaptive, multi-scheme approach was intended to improve the Quality of Service (QoS) for users of cloud applications by more intelligently managing resource bottlenecks and migrating resource-intensive tasks when necessary. (’134 Patent, col. 4:65-col. 5:10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶12).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A method to manage resources in a cloud computing environment, comprising:
  • determining a consumption rate of cloud resources by one or more VMs;
  • prioritizing the VMs using a first resource management scheme based on the consumption rate;
  • determining whether a change in the consumption rate exceeds a predetermined threshold, where the change can include processor/memory/I/O usage or a "change region size based on changed regions of a graphical display";
  • prioritizing the VMs using a second resource management scheme based on maximum capacity and whether the change exceeded the threshold; and
  • migrating the consumption of cloud resources to alternate cloud resources based on the second prioritization.
• The complaint states infringement of "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert others. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "BIG-IQ Centralized Management system." (Compl. ¶7).

Functionality and Market Context

• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the BIG-IQ system is a tool used to manage resources in a cloud computing environment. (Compl. ¶14). Its accused functions include providing "monitoring and performance metrics," making "recommendations," and managing resources within the "F5 cloud computing environment." (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges the system determines CPU and memory consumption rates, prioritizes VMs, and performs "Workload balancing" that may involve migrating VMs. (Compl. ¶¶15, 16, 18, 19). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’134 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary question will be whether the BIG-IQ system’s "Workload balancing" functions operate as the distinct, two-step prioritization process required by the claim. The complaint must provide evidence that the system first applies one scheme, then detects a discrete change in consumption, and only then applies a second, different scheme. The current allegations describe these functions in a conclusory manner.
  • Scope Questions: The complaint’s allegation that the accused system meets the "change region size based on changed regions of a graphical display" limitation may be a point of significant dispute. (Compl. ¶17). The patent specification discusses this concept through an analogy to "virtual graphics driver technology." (’134 Patent, col. 6:11-15). The court will need to determine if this language, rooted in a graphics context, can be construed to read on the functions of a network management product like BIG-IQ, for which the complaint provides no specific corresponding feature.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "resource management scheme" (first and second)

• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the claimed method, defining the two distinct prioritization steps. Its construction will determine whether the accused system's alleged "calculation for CPU and memory demand" and "Workload balancing" functions fall within the scope of the claims. (Compl. ¶¶16, 18). Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s specific examples could be used to argue for a narrower definition than what the Plaintiff appears to assert.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general, and the patent states the "first resource management scheme may be any resource management scheme." (’134 Patent, col. 5:58-62). This supports a broad, functional definition.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, such as a "low inter-reference recency set (LIRS) resource management scheme" for the first scheme and a "least recently used (LRU) replacement scheme" for the second. (’134 Patent, col. 5:64-65; col. 6:40-41). A defendant may argue these examples limit the term's scope to specific types of caching or replacement algorithms.

• The Term: "change region size based on changed regions of a graphical display"

• Context and Importance: This limitation is part of the trigger for implementing the second, more drastic management scheme (migration). Infringement requires proving the accused BIG-IQ system uses this specific metric. The complaint alleges this element is met but offers no supporting facts, making its construction critical. (Compl. ¶17).

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue this is simply one of a list of possible metrics for measuring a change in consumption rate, and that the term should be interpreted functionally as any measure of graphical or user-interface-related workload change.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly links this concept to "virtual graphics driver technology" and "displays generated by a graphics card." (’134 Patent, col. 6:11-20). This provides strong evidence that the term is meant to have a specific technical meaning tied to graphics processing, which may not be present in the accused network management system.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "makes, uses, sells, and offers to sell use of the BIG-IQ Centralized Management system." (Compl. ¶14). While this could form the basis for an inducement claim, the complaint does not plead specific facts regarding intent, such as alleging that Defendant's user manuals or marketing materials instruct customers to operate the system in an infringing manner.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement or pre-suit knowledge of the ’134 Patent.

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

• A key evidentiary question will be one of operational sequence: can the Plaintiff produce evidence that the accused BIG-IQ system performs the specific, sequential two-step process of the claims? This requires showing not just that the system monitors and balances workloads, but that it applies a "first" prioritization scheme, then separately detects a "change" in consumption that exceeds a threshold, and only then applies a "second" scheme that leads to migration.
• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "change region size based on changed regions of a graphical display," which the patent specification ties directly to graphics card analogies, be construed to cover a function within the accused BIG-IQ network management system? The resolution of this construction issue may be dispositive for infringement.
• A third central question will concern the term "resource management scheme": does the accused system's alleged "workload balancing" functionality meet the technical requirements of the claimed "schemes," particularly when viewed in light of the specific LIRS and LRU examples provided in the patent specification?