Case 1:17-cv-01635-CFC Document 1 Filed 11/10/17 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC d/b/a IXO,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`C.A. No.
`
`v.
`
`FORTINET, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AGAINST FORTINET, INC.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the
`
`United States of America, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. in which Plaintiff Realtime Data LLC
`
`d/b/a IXO (“Plaintiff,” “Realtime,” or “IXO”) makes the following allegations against
`
`Defendant Fortinet, Inc. (“Fortinet” or “Defendant”):
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Realtime is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the
`
`State of New York. Realtime has places of business at 5851 Legacy Circle, Plano, Texas
`
`75024, 1828 E.S.E. Loop 323, Tyler, Texas 75701, and 66 Palmer Avenue, Suite 27,
`
`Bronxville, NY 10708. Since the 1990s, Realtime has researched and developed specific
`
`solutions for data compression, including, for example, those that increase the speeds at
`
`which data can be stored and accessed. As recognition of its innovations rooted in this
`
`technological field, Realtime holds 50 United States patents and has numerous pending
`
`patent applications. Realtime has licensed patents in this portfolio to many of the world’s
`
`leading technology companies. The patents-in-suit relate to Realtime’s development of
`
`1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC d/b/a IXO,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`C.A. No.
`
`v.
`
`FORTINET, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AGAINST FORTINET, INC.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the
`
`United States of America, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. in which Plaintiff Realtime Data LLC
`
`d/b/a IXO (“Plaintiff,” “Realtime,” or “IXO”) makes the following allegations against
`
`Defendant Fortinet, Inc. (“Fortinet” or “Defendant”):
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Realtime is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the
`
`State of New York. Realtime has places of business at 5851 Legacy Circle, Plano, Texas
`
`75024, 1828 E.S.E. Loop 323, Tyler, Texas 75701, and 66 Palmer Avenue, Suite 27,
`
`Bronxville, NY 10708. Since the 1990s, Realtime has researched and developed specific
`
`solutions for data compression, including, for example, those that increase the speeds at
`
`which data can be stored and accessed. As recognition of its innovations rooted in this
`
`technological field, Realtime holds 50 United States patents and has numerous pending
`
`patent applications. Realtime has licensed patents in this portfolio to many of the world’s
`
`leading technology companies. The patents-in-suit relate to Realtime’s development of
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-01635-CFC Document 1 Filed 11/10/17 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 2
`
`advanced systems and methods for fast and efficient data compression using numerous
`
`innovative compression techniques based on, for example, particular attributes of the data.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Fortinet is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 899 Kifer Road, Sunnyvale, CA 94086. Fortinet can be
`
`served through its registered agent, Corporation Services Company, 251 Little Falls
`
`Drive, Wilmington, Delaware 19808.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of
`
`the United States Code. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`4.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Fortinet in this action
`
`because Fortinet is incorporated in Delaware and has committed acts within the District
`
`of Delaware giving rise to this action and has established minimum contacts with this
`
`forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Fortinet would not offend traditional
`
`notions of fair play and substantial justice. Fortinet, directly and through subsidiaries or
`
`intermediaries, has committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in this
`
`District by, among other things, offering to sell and selling products and/or services that
`
`infringe the asserted patents.
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Upon
`
`information and belief, Fortinet is incorporated in Delaware, has transacted business in
`
`the District of Delaware, and has committed acts of direct and indirect infringement in
`
`the District of Delaware.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-01635-CFC Document 1 Filed 11/10/17 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 3
`
`COUNT I
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,054,728
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-5 above, as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff Realtime is the owner by assignment of United States Patent No.
`
`9,054,728 (“the ’728 Patent”) entitled “Data compression systems and methods.”
`
`The ’728 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office on June 9, 2015. A true and correct copy of the ’728 Patent is included as Exhibit
`
`A.
`
`8.
`
`On information and belief, Fortinet has offered for sale, sold and/or
`
`imported into the United States Fortinet products and services that infringe the ’728
`
`Patent, and continues to do so. By way of illustrative example, these infringing products
`
`and services include, without limitation, Fortinet’s FortiGate and FortiGate IPS products,
`
`and all products and services using WAN optimization, including, without limitation, the
`
`WAN optimization functionality of FortiOS, and the system hardware on which they
`
`operate, and all versions and variations thereof since the issuance of the ’728 Patent (the
`
`“Accused Instrumentalities”).
`
`9.
`
`On information and belief, Fortinet has directly infringed and continues to
`
`infringe the ’728 Patent, for example, by making, selling, offering for sale, and/or
`
`importing the Accused Instrumentalities, and through its own use and testing of the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities, which constitute systems for compressing data claimed by
`
`Claim 1 of the ’728 Patent, comprising: a processor; one or more content dependent data
`
`compression encoders; and a single data compression encoder; wherein the processor is
`
`configured: to analyze data within a data block to identify one or more parameters or
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-01635-CFC Document 1 Filed 11/10/17 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 4
`
`attributes of the data wherein the analyzing of the data within the data block to identify
`
`the one or more parameters or attributes of the data excludes analyzing based solely on a
`
`descriptor that is indicative of the one or more parameters or attributes of the data within
`
`the data block; to perform content dependent data compression with the one or more
`
`content dependent data compression encoders if the one or more parameters or attributes
`
`of the data are identified; and to perform data compression with the single data
`
`compression encoder, if the one or more parameters or attributes of the data are not
`
`identified. Upon information and belief, Fortinet uses the Accused Instrumentalities,
`
`which are infringing systems, for its own internal non-testing business purposes, while
`
`testing the Accused Instrumentalities, and while providing technical support and repair
`
`services for the Accused Instrumentalities to Fortinet’s customers.
`
`10.
`
`On information and belief, Fortinet has had knowledge of the ’728 Patent
`
`since at least the filing of this Complaint or shortly thereafter, and on information and
`
`belief, Fortinet knew of the ’728 Patent and knew of its infringement, including by way
`
`of this lawsuit.
`
`11.
`
`Fortinet’s affirmative acts of making, using, selling, offering for sale,
`
`and/or importing the Accused Instrumentalities have induced and continue to induce
`
`users of the Accused Instrumentalities to use the Accused Instrumentalities in their
`
`normal and customary way on compatible systems to infringe Claim 1 of the ’728 Patent,
`
`knowing that when the Accused Instrumentalities are used in their ordinary and
`
`customary manner with such compatible systems, such systems constitute infringing
`
`systems for compressing data comprising; a processor; one or more content dependent
`
`data compression encoders; and a single data compression encoder; wherein the
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-01635-CFC Document 1 Filed 11/10/17 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 5
`
`processor is configured: to analyze data within a data block to identify one or more
`
`parameters or attributes of the data wherein the analyzing of the data within the data
`
`block to identify the one or more parameters or attributes of the data excludes analyzing
`
`based solely on a descriptor that is indicative of the one or more parameters or attributes
`
`of the data within the data block; to perform content dependent data compression with the
`
`one or more content dependent data compression encoders if the one or more parameters
`
`or attributes of the data are identified; and to perform data compression with the single
`
`data compression encoder, if the one or more parameters or attributes of the data are not
`
`identified. For example, Fortinet explains to customers the benefits of using the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities: “Deduplication, or the process of eliminating duplicate data, will
`
`reduce
`
`space
`
`consumption.”
`
`See
`
`http://help.fortinet.com/fos50hlp/54/Content/FortiOS/fortigate-ports-and-protocols-
`
`54/09-WAN-opt.htm. For similar reasons, Fortinet also induces its customers to use the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities to infringe other claims of
`
`the ’728 Patent.
`
`Fortinet
`
`specifically intended and was aware that the normal and customary use of the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities on compatible systems would infringe the ’728 Patent.
`
`Fortinet
`
`performed the acts that constitute induced infringement, and would induce actual
`
`infringement, with the knowledge of the ’728 Patent and with the knowledge, or willful
`
`blindness to the probability, that the induced acts would constitute infringement. On
`
`information and belief, Fortinet engaged in such inducement to promote the sales of the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities, e.g.,
`
`through Fortinet’s user manuals, product support,
`
`marketing materials, and training materials to actively induce the users of the accused
`
`products to infringe the ’728 Patent. Accordingly, Fortinet has induced and continues to
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-01635-CFC Document 1 Filed 11/10/17 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 6
`
`induce end users of the accused products to use the accused products in their ordinary and
`
`customary way with compatible systems to make and/or use systems infringing the ’728
`
`Patent, knowing that such use of the Accused Instrumentalities with compatible systems
`
`will result in infringement of the ’728 Patent.
`
`12.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities include a system for compressing data,
`
`comprising a processor. For example, the system specifications for FortiGate products
`
`include SPU processors. See, e.g., https://www.fortinet.com/content/dam/fortinet/assets/
`
`data-sheets/FortiGate_FortiWiFi_30E.pdf;
`
`https://www.fortinet.com/content/dam/
`
`fortinet/assets/data-sheets/FortiGate_3900E_Series.pdf.
`
`13.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities include a system for compressing data,
`
`comprising one or more content dependent data compression encoders. For example, the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities perform block-level deduplication, which is a content
`
`dependent
`
`data
`
`compression
`
`encoder.
`
`See,
`
`https://docs.fortinet.com/uploaded/files/1116/inside-fortios-wanopt-50.pdf
`
`e.g.,
`
`(“Data
`
`Deduplication: Byte caching breaks large units of application data,
`
`like an email
`
`attachment or a file download, into manageable small chunks of data. Each chunk of data
`
`is labeled with a hash, and chunks with their respective hashes are stored in a database on
`
`the local FortiGate unit. When a remote user request a file, the WAN Optimization sends
`
`the hashes, rather than the actual data. The FortiGate unit at the other end of the WAN
`
`tunnel reassembles the data from its own hash database, only downloading chunks that it
`
`is missing. Deduplication, or the process of eliminating duplicate data, will reduce space
`
`consumption.”). Performing deduplication results in compression by representing data
`
`with fewer bits.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-01635-CFC Document 1 Filed 11/10/17 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 7
`
`14.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities comprise a single data compression
`
`encoder.
`
`See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`https://www.fortinet.com/content/dam/fortinet/assets/white-
`
`papers/WP-UTM-Thought-Leadereship.pdf
`
`(“WAN optimization helps improve the
`
`performance and capacity of SMB networks
`
`through the use of compression,
`
`deduplication,
`
`caching,
`
`and more
`
`to
`
`speed
`
`delivery
`
`of
`
`information.”);
`
`https://docs.fortinet.com/
`
`uploaded/files/3987/fortios_firewall-56.pdf (“The first time a file is received by web
`
`caching it is cached in the format it is received in, whether it be compressed or
`
`uncompressed. When the same file is requested by a client but in a different compression
`
`format, the cached file is converted to the new compressed format before being sent to
`
`the client.”).
`
`15.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities analyze data within a data block to identify
`
`one or more parameters or attributes of the data, for example, whether the data is
`
`duplicative of data previously transmitted and/or stored, where the analysis does not rely
`
`only on the descriptor. See, e.g., https://docs.fortinet.com/uploaded/files/1116/inside-
`
`fortios-wanopt-50.pdf
`
`(“Data Deduplication: Byte caching breaks
`
`large units of
`
`application data, like an email attachment or a file download, into manageable small
`
`chunks of data. Each chunk of data is labeled with a hash, and chunks with their
`
`respective hashes are stored in a database on the local FortiGate unit. When a remote user
`
`request a file, the WAN Optimization sends the hashes, rather than the actual data. The
`
`FortiGate unit at the other end of the WAN tunnel reassembles the data from its own hash
`
`database, only downloading chunks that it is missing. Deduplication, or the process of
`
`eliminating duplicate data, will reduce space consumption.”).
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-01635-CFC Document 1 Filed 11/10/17 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 8
`
`16.
`
`The Accused
`
`Instrumentalities
`
`perform content
`
`dependent
`
`data
`
`compression with the one or more content dependent data compression encoders if the
`
`one or more parameters or attributes of
`
`the data are identified.
`
`See, e.g.,
`
`https://docs.fortinet.com/uploaded/files/1116/inside-fortios-wanopt-50.pdf
`
`(“Data
`
`Deduplication: Byte caching breaks large units of application data,
`
`like an email
`
`attachment or a file download, into manageable small chunks of data. Each chunk of data
`
`is labeled with a hash, and chunks with their respective hashes are stored in a database on
`
`the local FortiGate unit. When a remote user request a file, the WAN Optimization sends
`
`the hashes, rather than the actual data. The FortiGate unit at the other end of the WAN
`
`tunnel reassembles the data from its own hash database, only downloading chunks that it
`
`is missing. Deduplication, or the process of eliminating duplicate data, will reduce space
`
`consumption.”).
`
`17.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities perform data compression with the single
`
`data compression encoder, if the one or more parameters or attributes of the data are not
`
`identified.
`
`See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`https://www.fortinet.com/content/dam/fortinet/assets/white-
`
`papers/WP-UTM-Thought-Leadereship.pdf
`
`(“WAN optimization helps improve the
`
`performance and capacity of SMB networks
`
`through the use of compression,
`
`deduplication,
`
`caching,
`
`and more
`
`to
`
`speed
`
`delivery
`
`of
`
`information.”);
`
`https://docs.fortinet.com/
`
`uploaded/files/3987/fortios_firewall-56.pdf (“The first time a file is received by web
`
`caching it is cached in the format it is received in, whether it be compressed or
`
`uncompressed. When the same file is requested by a client but in a different compression
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-01635-CFC Document 1 Filed 11/10/17 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 9
`
`format, the cached file is converted to the new compressed format before being sent to
`
`the client.”).
`
`18.
`
`Fortinet also infringes other claims of the ’728 Patent, directly and through
`
`inducing infringement and contributory infringement, for similar reasons as explained
`
`above with respect to Claim 1 of the ’728 Patent.
`
`19.
`
`On information and belief, use of the Accused Instrumentalities in their
`
`ordinary and customary fashion results in infringement of the methods claimed by
`
`the ’728 Patent.
`
`20.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the
`
`United States the Accused Instrumentalities, and touting the benefits of using the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities’ compression features, Fortinet has injured Realtime and is
`
`liable to Realtime for infringement of the ’728 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`21.
`
`As a result of Fortinet’s infringement of the ’728 Patent, Plaintiff Realtime
`
`is entitled to monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Fortinet’s
`
`infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the
`
`invention by Fortinet, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`COUNT II
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,667,751
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-21 above, as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff Realtime is the owner by assignment of United States Patent No.
`
`9,667,751 (“the ’751 Patent”) entitled “Data feed acceleration.” The ’751 Patent was
`
`duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on May 30,
`
`2017. A true and correct copy of the ’751 Patent is included as Exhibit B.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-01635-CFC Document 1 Filed 11/10/17 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 10
`
`24.
`
`On information and belief, Fortinet has offered for sale, sold and/or
`
`imported into the United States Fortinet products and services that infringe the ’751
`
`Patent, and continues to do so. By way of illustrative example, these infringing products
`
`and services include, without limitation, Fortinet’s FortiGate and FortiGate IPS products,
`
`and all products and services using WAN optimization, including, without limitation, the
`
`WAN optimization functionality of FortiOS, and the system hardware on which they
`
`operate, and all versions and variations thereof since the issuance of the ’751 Patent (the
`
`“Accused Instrumentalities”).
`
`25.
`
`On information and belief, Fortinet has directly infringed and continues to
`
`infringe the ’751 Patent, for example, through its own use and testing of the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities, which in the ordinary course of their operation form a system for
`
`compressing data claimed by Claim 25 of the ’751 Patent, including: a data server
`
`implemented on one or more processors and one or more memory systems; the data
`
`server configured to analyze content of a data block to identify a parameter, attribute, or
`
`value of the data block that excludes analysis based solely on reading a descriptor; the
`
`data server configured to select an encoder associated with the identified parameter,
`
`attribute, or value; the data server configured to compress data in the data block with the
`
`selected encoder to produce a compressed data block, wherein the compression utilizes a
`
`state machine; and the data server configured to store the compressed data block; wherein
`
`the time of the compressing the data block and the storing the compressed data block is
`
`less than the time of storing the data block in uncompressed form. Upon information and
`
`belief, Fortinet uses the Accused Instrumentalities, which are infringing systems, for its
`
`own internal non-testing business purposes, while testing the Accused Instrumentalities,
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-01635-CFC Document 1 Filed 11/10/17 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 11
`
`and while providing technical
`
`support
`
`and repair
`
`services
`
`for
`
`the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities to Fortinet’s customers.
`
`26.
`
`On information and belief, Fortinet has had knowledge of the ’751 Patent
`
`since at least the filing of this Complaint or shortly thereafter, and on information and
`
`belief, Fortinet knew of the ’751 Patent and knew of its infringement, including by way
`
`of this lawsuit.
`
`27.
`
`Upon information and belief, Fortinet’s affirmative acts of making, using,
`
`and selling the Accused Instrumentalities, and providing implementation services and
`
`technical support to users of the Accused Instrumentalities, have induced and continue to
`
`induce users of the Accused Instrumentalities to use them in their normal and customary
`
`way to infringe Claim 25 of the ’751 Patent by making or using a data server
`
`implemented on one or more processors and one or more memory systems; the data
`
`server configured to analyze content of a data block to identify a parameter, attribute, or
`
`value of the data block that excludes analysis based solely on reading a descriptor; the
`
`data server configured to select an encoder associated with the identified parameter,
`
`attribute, or value; the data server configured to compress data in the data block with the
`
`selected encoder to produce a compressed data block, wherein the compression utilizes a
`
`state machine; and the data server configured to store the compressed data block; wherein
`
`the time of the compressing the data block and the storing the compressed data block is
`
`less than the time of storing the data block in uncompressed form. For example, Fortinet
`
`explains to customers the benefits of using the Accused Instrumentalities: “Deduplication,
`
`or the process of eliminating duplicate data, will reduce space consumption.”
`
`See
`
`http://help.fortinet.com/
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-01635-CFC Document 1 Filed 11/10/17 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 12
`
`fos50hlp/54/Content/FortiOS/fortigate-ports-and-protocols-54/09-WAN-opt.htm.
`
`For
`
`similar reasons, Fortinet also induces its customers to use the Accused Instrumentalities
`
`to infringe other claims of the ’751 Patent. Fortinet specifically intended and was aware
`
`that these normal and customary activities would infringe the ’751 Patent. Fortinet
`
`performed the acts that constitute induced infringement, and would induce actual
`
`infringement, with the knowledge of the ’751 Patent and with the knowledge, or willful
`
`blindness to the probability, that the induced acts would constitute infringement. On
`
`information and belief, Fortinet engaged in such inducement to promote the sales of the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities. Accordingly, Fortinet has induced and continues to induce
`
`users of the accused products to use the accused products in their ordinary and customary
`
`way to infringe the ’751 Patent, knowing that such use constitutes infringement of
`
`the ’751 Patent.
`
`28.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities include a system for compressing data. See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`https://www.fortinet.com/content/dam/fortinet/assets/white-papers/WP-UTM-
`
`Thought-Leadereship.pdf (“WAN optimization helps improve the performance and
`
`capacity of SMB networks through the use of compression, deduplication, caching, and
`
`more
`
`to
`
`speed
`
`delivery
`
`of
`
`information.”);
`
`https://docs.fortinet.com/uploaded/
`
`files/3987/fortios_firewall-56.pdf (“The first time a file is received by web caching it is
`
`cached in the format it is received in, whether it be compressed or uncompressed. When
`
`the same file is requested by a client but in a different compression format, the cached
`
`file is converted to the new compressed format before being sent to the client.”);
`
`https://docs.fortinet.com/uploaded/files/1116/inside-fortios-wanopt-50.pdf
`
`(“Data
`
`Deduplication: Byte caching breaks large units of application data,
`
`like an email
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-01635-CFC Document 1 Filed 11/10/17 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 13
`
`attachment or a file download, into manageable small chunks of data. Each chunk of data
`
`is labeled with a hash, and chunks with their respective hashes are stored in a database on
`
`the local FortiGate unit. When a remote user request a file, the WAN Optimization sends
`
`the hashes, rather than the actual data. The FortiGate unit at the other end of the WAN
`
`tunnel reassembles the data from its own hash database, only downloading chunks that it
`
`is missing. Deduplication, or the process of eliminating duplicate data, will reduce space
`
`consumption.”).
`
`29.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities include a data server implemented on one
`
`or more processors and one or more memory systems.
`
`For example,
`
`the system
`
`specifications
`
`for FortiGate
`
`products
`
`include SPU processors.
`
`See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`https://www.fortinet.com/
`
`content/dam/fortinet/assets/data-sheets/FortiGate_FortiWiFi_30E.pdf;
`
`https://www.fortinet.com/content/dam/fortinet/assets/data-
`
`sheets/FortiGate_3900E_Series.pdf. The Accused Instrumentalities also use one or more
`
`memory systems,
`
`including storage media at remote storage facilities.
`
`See, e.g.,
`
`https://docs.fortinet.com/uploaded/files/1116/inside-fortios-wanopt-50.pdf.
`
`30.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities include a data server configured to analyze
`
`content of a data block to identify a parameter, attribute, or value of the data block that
`
`excludes
`
`analysis
`
`based
`
`solely
`
`on
`
`reading
`
`a
`
`descriptor.
`
`See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`https://docs.fortinet.com/uploaded/files/1116/inside-fortios-wanopt-50.pdf
`
`(“Data
`
`Deduplication: Byte caching breaks large units of application data,
`
`like an email
`
`attachment or a file download, into manageable small chunks of data. Each chunk of data
`
`is labeled with a hash, and chunks with their respective hashes are stored in a database on
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-01635-CFC Document 1 Filed 11/10/17 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 14
`
`the local FortiGate unit. When a remote user request a file, the WAN Optimization sends
`
`the hashes, rather than the actual data. The FortiGate unit at the other end of the WAN
`
`tunnel reassembles the data from its own hash database, only downloading chunks that it
`
`is missing. Deduplication, or the process of eliminating duplicate data, will reduce space
`
`consumption.”).
`
`31.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities include a data server configured to select
`
`an encoder associated with the identified parameter, attribute, or value. For example, the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities select between deduplication or other compression. See, e.g.,
`
`https://www.fortinet.com/content/dam/fortinet/assets/white-papers/WP-UTM-Thought-
`
`Leadereship.pdf (“WAN optimization helps improve the performance and capacity of
`
`SMB networks through the use of compression, deduplication, caching, and more to
`
`speed
`
`delivery
`
`of
`
`information.”);
`
`https://docs.fortinet.com/uploaded/files/3987/fortios_firewall-56.pdf (“The first
`
`time a
`
`file is received by web caching it is cached in the format it is received in, whether it be
`
`compressed or uncompressed. When the same file is requested by a client but in a
`
`different compression format, the cached file is converted to the new compressed format
`
`before being sent to the client.”); https://docs.fortinet.com/uploaded/files/1116/inside-
`
`fortios-wanopt-50.pdf
`
`(“Data Deduplication: Byte caching breaks
`
`large units of
`
`application data, like an email attachment or a file download, into manageable small
`
`chunks of data. Each chunk of data is labeled with a hash, and chunks with their
`
`respective hashes are stored in a database on the local FortiGate unit. When a remote user
`
`request a file, the WAN Optimization sends the hashes, rather than the actual data. The
`
`FortiGate unit at the other end of the WAN tunnel reassembles the data from its own hash
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-01635-CFC Document 1 Filed 11/10/17 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 15
`
`database, only downloading chunks that it is missing. Deduplication, or the process of
`
`eliminating duplicate data, will reduce space consumption.”).
`
`32.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities include a data server configured to
`
`compress data in the data block with the selected encoder to produce a compressed data
`
`block, wherein
`
`the
`
`compression
`
`utilizes
`
`a
`
`state machine.
`
`See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`https://www.fortinet.com/content/dam/fortinet/assets/white-papers/WP-UTM-Thought-
`
`Leadereship.pdf (“WAN optimization helps improve the performance and capacity of
`
`SMB networks through the use of compression, deduplication, caching, and more to
`
`speed
`
`delivery
`
`of
`
`information.”);
`
`https://docs.fortinet.com/uploaded/files/3987/fortios_firewall-56.pdf (“The first
`
`time a
`
`file is received by web caching it is cached in the format it is received in, whether it be
`
`compressed or uncompressed. When the same file is requested by a client but in a
`
`different compression format, the cached file is converted to the new compressed format
`
`before being sent to the client.”).
`
`33.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities include a data server configured to store the
`
`compressed data block. For example, the Accused Instrumentalities have storage media
`
`at remote storage facilities controlled by data servers. See, e.g., https://docs.fortinet.com/
`
`uploaded/files/1116/inside-fortios-wanopt-50.pdf. Also, compressed data blocks are
`
`stored temporarily in volatile memory when they are created.
`
`34.
`
`The time of the compressing the data block and the storing the compressed
`
`data block in the Accused Instrumentalities is less than the time of storing the data block
`
`in uncompressed form. Due to the data reduction and acceleration features of the specific
`
`compression algorithms used, the time of the compressing the data block and the storing
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-01635-CFC Document 1 Filed 11/10/17 Page 16 of 34 PageID #: 16
`
`the compressed data block is less than the time of storing the data block in uncompressed
`
`form. See, e.g., https://www.fortinet.com/content/dam/fortinet/assets/white-papers/WP-
`
`UTM-Thought-Leadereship.pdf (“WAN optimization helps improve the performance and
`
`capacity of SMB networks through the use of compression, deduplication, caching, and
`
`more
`
`to
`
`speed
`
`delivery
`
`of
`
`information.”);
`
`https://docs.fortinet.com/uploaded/
`
`files/3987/fortios_firewall-56.pdf (“The first time a file is received by web caching it is
`
`cached in the format it is received in, whether it be compressed or uncompressed. When
`
`the same file is requested by a client but in a different compression format, the cached
`
`file is converted to the new compressed format before being sent to the client.”);
`
`https://docs.fortinet.com/uploaded/files/1116/inside-fortios-wanopt-50.pdf
`
`(“Data
`
`Deduplication: Byte caching breaks large units of application data,
`
`like an email
`
`attachment or a file download, into manageable small chunks of data. Each chunk of data
`
`is labeled with a hash, and chunks with their respective hashes are stored in a database on
`
`the local FortiGate unit. When a remote user request a file, the WAN Optimization sends
`
`the hashes, rather than the actual data. The FortiGate unit at the other end of the WAN
`
`tunnel reassembles the data from its own hash database, only downloading chunks that it
`
`is missing. Deduplication, or the process of eliminating duplicate data, will reduce space
`
`consumption.”).
`
`35.
`
`On information and belief, Fortinet also infringes, directly and through
`
`induced infringement, and continues to infringe other claims of the ’751 Patent, for
`
`similar reasons as explained above with respect to Claim 25 of the ’751 Patent.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-01635-CFC Document 1 Filed 11/10/17 Page 17 of 34 PageID #: 17
`
`36.
`
`On information and belief, use of the Accused Instrumentalities in their
`
`ordinary and customary fashion results in infringement of the methods claimed by
`
`the ’751 Patent.
`
`37.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the
`
`United States the Accused Instrumentalities, and touting the benefits of using the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities’ compression features, Fortinet has injured Realtime and is
`
`liable to Realtime for infringement of the ’751 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`38.
`
`As a result of Fortinet’s infringement of the ’751 Patent, Plaintiff Realtime
`
`is entitled to monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Fortinet’s
`
`infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the
`
`invention by Fortinet, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`COUNT III
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,717,203
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-38 above, as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff Realtime is the owner by assignment of United States Patent No.
`
`8,717,203 (“the ’203 Patent”) entitled “Data compression systems and methods.”
`
`The ’203 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office on May 6, 2014. A true and correct copy of the ’203 Patent is included as Exhibit
`
`C.
`
`41.
`
`On information and belief, Fortinet has offered for sale, sold and/or
`
`imported into the United States Fortinet products and services that infringe the ’203
`
`Patent, and continues to do so. By way of illustrative example, these infringing products
`
`and services include, without limitation, Fortinet’s FortiGate and FortiGate IPS products,
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-01635-CFC Document 1 Filed 11/10/17 Page 18 of 34 PageID #: 18
`
`and all products and services using WAN optimization, including, without limitation, the
`
`WAN optimization functionality of FortiOS, and the system hardware on which they
`
`operate, and all versions and variations thereof since the issuance of the ’203 Patent (the
`
`“Accused Instrumentalities”).
`
`42.
`
`On information and belief, Fortinet has directly infringed and continues to
`
`infringe the ’203 Patent, for example, through its own use and testing of the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities, which in the ordinary course of their operation form a system, claimed
`
`by Claim 14 of the ’203 Patent, for decompressing one or more compressed data blocks
`
`included in one or more data packets using a data decompression engine, the one or more
`
`data packets being transmitted in sequence from a source that is internal or external to the
`
`data decompression engine, wherein a data packet from among the one or more data
`
`packets comprises a header containing contr
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
