Actifio, Inc. v. Delphix Corp.

Citations: 150 F. Supp. 3d 117; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166366; 2015 WL 8664205Docket: Civil Action No. 14-13247-DJC

Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts; December 10, 2015; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Actifio, Inc. has filed a lawsuit against Delphix Corp., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,299,944, 8,788,769, and 8,904,126, collectively referred to as the “Patents-in-Suit,” which relate to virtual data management, storage, and backup. Actifio claims that Delphix’s "Agile Data Platform" infringes these patents, which share similar specifications and were all filed on November 16, 2010. The ’9944 patent was issued on October 30, 2012, the ’769 patent on July 22, 2014, and the ’126 patent on December 2, 2014.

The procedural history indicates that Actifio initiated the action on August 6, 2014, and Delphix subsequently attempted to dismiss or transfer the case, which the Court denied. An amended complaint was filed by Actifio on April 14, 2015. After claim construction briefing, a Markman hearing took place on November 19, 2015, during which Delphix filed an unauthorized supplemental submission. Actifio requested to strike this submission, but the Court denied that motion.

The Court emphasizes that claim term construction is a legal question determined by the meaning those terms would have to a person skilled in the relevant art at the patent application’s filing date, considering the claims’ language, specifications, prosecution history, and relevant scientific principles.

Claims in a patent define the invention and grant the patentee the right to exclude others from practicing it. They are interpreted based on their ordinary and customary meaning, and context plays a crucial role in understanding specific terms. A term's meaning in one claim typically applies to its usage in others, especially if consistently employed throughout the patent. The existence of a dependent claim implies that its limitations are not present in the independent claim.

Claims must be read in conjunction with the specification, which serves as the primary guide for interpreting disputed terms. The specification delineates the scope of the claims and cannot expand beyond the invention described therein. When interpreting claims, care must be taken not to impose limitations from the specification back into the claims themselves, although achieving this balance can be challenging. The correct construction aligns closely with the claim language and the patent's description.

The prosecution history, which documents how the inventor perceived the patent during its examination, can also inform the interpretation of claim language. However, it is often less clear and thus carries less weight compared to the intrinsic evidence of claims and specification.

Extrinsic evidence, such as dictionaries and treatises, may assist in clarifying the field of invention and the understanding of particular terms, but it is generally considered less reliable than intrinsic sources.

The document concludes with a note that the parties are in dispute over the meanings of five specific terms, which the Court will resolve.

The dispute centers on the interpretation of “non-lossy encoding technique” in claim 1 of the ’9944 patent. Claim 1 outlines a method for storing deduplicated images by encoding a portion of an image and storing it in a hash table. The process involves receiving content, generating a hash structure, and determining if the content can be encoded using a predefined non-lossy technique, allowing the original content to be derived from the encoding rather than stored directly.

Both parties agree that the term refers to an algorithm applicable to a data chunk but disagree on whether this algorithm must be a data compression algorithm and whether the original data must be decoded from the encoded data itself. Delphix argues for a restricted definition that limits it to a data compression algorithm, asserting that the inclusion of “non-lossy” implies such a constraint. However, this interpretation lacks support from the claim language, specification, and extrinsic evidence, which do not explicitly define the term or reference data compression.

The plain and ordinary meaning of “non-lossy encoding technique” is understood as a process that translates one representation of information into another while preserving the original information, without implying compression. Data encryption is cited as an example of such a technique, as it allows for the complete reconstruction of original data and aligns with the broader interpretation of the term.

The specification addresses "lossless [non-lossy] data compression" primarily in the context of general data storage, not specifically for the content handle itself. The Court finds that "non-lossy" should not be exclusively interpreted as referring to data compression algorithms, as established in Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America. Although the specification contains an example using run-length encoding (RLE) for storing data in the content handle, this single embodiment does not limit the broad language of the claim. The claim does not impose specific limits on field size, allowing for the possibility of accommodating uncompressed data chunks. Delphix's argument that a "non-lossy encoding technique" must refer solely to algorithms that enable complete data reconstruction from encoded data is challenged by Actifio, which asserts that reconstruction can also utilize external inputs. The claim indicates that if encoded content fits within a designated field, it is marked for reconstruction from the encoding itself. The Court leans towards Delphix's interpretation, asserting that "non-lossy" implies complete preservation of original data, thus rejecting Actifio's broader definition that would include external input for data reconstruction, as such inputs are not mentioned in the claim or specification.

Actifio contends that Delphix's interpretation of claim 1 makes claim 4 redundant and precludes delta compression, which is outlined in the specification. Actifio argues that Delphix equates the data storage in the hash field to the reconstitution of content in claim 4. In contrast, Delphix clarifies that claim 1 pertains to the output of a "non-lossy encoding technique," while claim 4 discusses the process of reconstituting that encoded content, including the use of delta compression. Delta compression only stores changed data chunks, which must first undergo non-lossy encoding before reconstructing the data object. Actifio emphasizes the necessity of a decoding algorithm to access the original data and to facilitate delta compression, asserting that this algorithm is an external input. Delphix counters that the term "derived" in claim 1 indicates that an operation is performed on the encoded content to retrieve the original data, suggesting that the decoding algorithm is an integral part of this process rather than an external factor. Delphix's interpretation, therefore, does not eliminate the role of the decoding algorithm nor render claim 4 superfluous. The discussion also touches upon the term "encoded value," with both parties initially agreeing it results from applying the non-lossy encoding technique to the received content, although Actifio later argues that Delphix’s construction is redundant since the claim's plain language already includes this aspect.

The Court acknowledges ambiguity surrounding the term "encoded value" in claim 1, which refers to "received content" within the disclosed processes of the 9944 patent, lacking context. Actifio agrees with Delphix’s proposed construction of the term yet opposes its adoption; however, due to the unclear scope of the input, the Court adopts Delphix’s interpretation. Under Markman, district courts are tasked with resolving disputes related to the scope of claim language rather than the meanings of words themselves. 

In relation to the 769 patent, the Court assesses whether to construct a term concerning data restoration operations in claim 1, where Delphix argues that a simpler construction is needed to avoid jury confusion. The only technical terms identified are "storage pool" and "point-in-time image," the latter referring to complete application data at a backup time, which the Court finds does not require further clarification.

Delphix disputes the terms "identifying" and "finding," yet the Court concludes that these terms are synonymous and thus do not necessitate construction. The system synchronizes data by locating a common point-in-time image. Additionally, the term “a set of a plurality” is agreed to mean “two or more.” Delphix further contends that "simultaneously stored" could be misunderstood, but the Court clarifies that the claim indicates point-in-time images represent application data at various backup times, ensuring they cannot all be stored at the same moment. Delphix’s concerns center more on terminology than on the scope of the claims, aiming to elucidate meanings for jury understanding without imposing limitations from the specification.

The Court is not obligated to provide additional interpretation of a claim if its ordinary meaning is clear to a layperson, as established in Keurig, Inc. v. JBR, Inc. The term in question, while complex, is understood within the context of claim 1 without requiring further construction. Delphix argues for a specific interpretation of the term “common” in claim 5 of the ’769 patent, suggesting it refers to a point-in-time image that exists in both the destination and source storage pools. However, the Court finds this unnecessary, as the ordinary meaning of “common” already conveys a point-in-time image shared between two sets. The absence of explicit references to destination and source storage pools in the disputed term further supports that a broader interpretation is appropriate. Delphix’s proposed definition of “identifying” as “finding” has been previously rejected by the Court and is similarly unconvincing here.

Regarding the ’126 patent, Delphix contends that the phrase “at a first time” introduces ambiguity into the term “performed sequentially.” However, the Court clarifies that this phrase, while seemingly odd, provides necessary context when considered with the entire claim. It specifies that “at a first time” refers to the timing of the data management functions being sequentially performed, emphasizing the dependency of the second function on the first. Thus, the Court concludes that the terms should be interpreted based on their plain and ordinary meanings without the need for further construction.

When two data management functions overlap and require the storage of the same primary data simultaneously, the first function stores the data in secondary storage to fulfill its requirements. The second function, needing to back up the same primary data, compares the data in secondary storage with a previous backup copy and only records the differences. This method ensures that primary storage is accessed only once to satisfy both functions sequentially. 

The document provides specific constructions for disputed claim terms: 
1. "Non-lossy encoding technique" is defined as an algorithm that allows complete reconstruction of original data from its encoded representation.
2. "Encoded value" refers to the outcome of applying the non-lossy encoding technique to the received content.
3. The term regarding identifying a prior point-in-time image does not require construction.
4. The term about identifying a common point-in-time image also does not need construction.
5. "Performed sequentially at a first time" is not subject to construction.

Additionally, a mathematical function is described that generates a unique hash value for identical data chunks, ensuring the same hash value is produced for duplicates.