IV meets HP Enterprise in a long-running litigation marketing campaign – Mental Property

Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV) – through Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC – has filed suit against HP Enterprise (HPE) (6: 21-cv-00226) on the provision of various products related to the storage, virtualization and wireless networking of corporate data. The new case keeps the litigation alive in a campaign that began in May 2013 but was apparently tried in a district court in January 2021 after layoffs ended prejudiced separate lawsuits against them Arista Networks and
Dell ((VMWare). A Federal Circuit Appeal filed by Dell Remains Active (EMC),
Lenovo, and NetApp upon issuing a summary judgment of non-infringement in the Massachusetts District.

IV filed dozens of patents over the course of this campaign, the focus of which has shifted over the years. In its latest complaint, IV accuses HPE of having infringed seven patents (6,618,736; RE42,153; 7,783,788; RE44,818; 6,816,464; 8,023,991; 8,725,132) of different origins.

The ‘736 patent relates generally to the management of “storage units” which are divided into private storage units within shared storage units. IV targets certain Docker file system management functions provided in various products using Docker to support virtualized applications (including “HPE Docker Enterprise Edition, HPE ProLiant Server Family with Integrated Docker, HPE Ezmeral Container Platform with Docker Integration”) .
[and] HPE GreenLake Service for Containers “). Initial development work for the ‘736 patent was carried out at
Ensim Corporation.

The ‘153 patent generally relates to a distributed computing platform in which a project server dynamically distributes workloads across multiple client systems, with the server using query communications to dynamically snapshot client workloads and process workloads to client systems as needed for projects add or remove. With this patent, IV targets products that use Kubernetes to support virtualized applications, including “HPE Ezmeral Container Platform (including with pre-integrated HPE Ezmeral Data Fabric) and HPE Apollo servers, and HPE GreenLake cloud services for containers (including services) from the HPE Ezmeral Container Platform and run on the integrated HPE Synergy system) “. United Devices is the original legal successor of the patent.

IV accuses HPE of violating the ‘788 patent by providing certain enterprise storage systems, including “the HPE 3PAR StoreServ family of flash-optimized data storage systems, the HPE Primera Storage, and the HPE GreenLake Enterprise-Ready VM Service when implemented Primera Storage Platform, [and] HPE GreenLake Mission Critical Storage Service when implemented with the Primera Storage Platform “. Originally issued to 3Leaf systems (f / k / a 3Leaf networks) and by a
Huawei Subsidiary and through the Florida State University Foundation on the road to IV, the patent generally relates to the management and configuration of virtualized I / O subsystems.

The ‘818 patent relates broadly to the management of throughput to networked storage by multiple clients, particularly by assigning tokens to devices in a hierarchical structure. IV targets certain HPE enterprise storage systems including “the HPE 3PAR StoreServ family of flash-optimized data storage systems, the HPE Primera Storage, the HPE GreenLake Enterprise-Ready VM Service when implemented with the Primera Storage Platform; [and] HPE GreenLake Mission Critical Storage Service when implemented with the Primera Storage Platform. “The ‘818 patent followed the same development and assignment path as the’ 788 patent.

The ‘464 patent relates generally to determining the best quality route for network traffic; especially VoIP communication traffic (Voice over IP). The ‘464 patent was originally filed against certain edge networking products, including “HPE’s Silver Peak Unity EdgeConnect SD-WAN Edge Platform, including Intelligent Internet Breakout, a / k / a Aruba EdgeConnect Platform (‘ Unity EdgeConnect ‘)” transfer Array Telecom.

IV accuses HPE of the ‘991 patent by providing the Adaptive Radio Management (ARM) capability of HPE’s proprietary Aruba operating system, ArubaOS (and all versions / editions that support the ARM function), including the mobility of the Aruba 7200 series, having breached controllers running ArubaOS; the Mobility Master function, specifically the AirMatch workflow functionality of ArubaOS 8 (and all versions / editions that support this functionality) “. Originally granted Autocell Laboratories (f / k / a Propagate Networks)The patent relates generally to adjusting the wireless power transmission levels of multiple access points in a wireless network to reduce interference.

Finally, the ‘132 patent, which follows the same development and assignment path as the’ 991 patent, is broadly concerned with adjusting the power level of wireless transmission between multiple devices on a network to reduce interference. The patent is against “the Mobility Master function, in particular the AirMatch workflow functionality, of ArubaOS 8 with Wi-Fi 6 and Wi-Fi 6E technology (and all versions / editions that support this functionality), including 802.11 ax, 530 series from Aruba, and 550 series access points (APs) “.

The case against HPE was assigned to District Judge Alan D. Albright. 3/9, western borough of Texas.

The content of this article is intended to provide general guidance on the subject. A professional should be obtained about your particular circumstances.