Case 1:09-cv-00879-SS Document 60 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 7
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`(1) POSTVISION, INC., D/B/A
`ARCmON,
`(2) CELEROS CORPORATION,
`(3) DIGILINK TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`(4) CIPHERMAX, INC.,
`(5) INTRANSA, INC.,
`(6) RASILIENT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`(7) QLOGIC CORPORATION, and
`(8) OVERLAND STORAGE, INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`JURY DEMANDED
`
`§
`§
`§
`§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-CV-00879-SS
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.'S CONCISE STATEMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
`
`Crossroads Systems, Inc.
`
`("Crossroads") alleges
`
`that Digilink Technology, Inc.
`
`("Digilink"), Rasilient Systems, Inc. ("Rasilient"), and Overland Storage, Inc. ("Overland")
`
`(collectively, referred to herein as "Defendants") each infringes directly and indirectly, either
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, Claims 1-4, 7-14 of United States Patent No.
`
`6,425,035 (the "'035 Patent"). Crossroads further alleges that Overland infringes directly and
`
`indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-12, 14-16, 18-
`
`19, 21-23, 25-26, 28-30, 32-35 and 37-38 of United States Patent No. 7,051,147 (the "'147
`
`Patent,,).l This statement is preliminary as Crossroads has received no discovery from any of the
`
`Defendants. Crossroads reserves the right to supplement and/or amend its positions herein based
`
`I QLogic Corporation and Crossroads filed a Motion to Dismiss QLogic from the instant case. Postvision, Inc.,
`d/b/a Arehion and Crossroads filed a Stipulation of Dismissal as to Arehion. As a resull, neither of these Defendanls
`is included in the instant Statement.
`
`Oracle Ex. 1224, pg. 1
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`

`
`Case 1:09-cv-00879-SS Document 60 Filed 04/07/10 Page 2 of 7
`
`upon further information obtained during the discovery process, claim construction or further
`
`analysis.
`
`In addition, Crossroads may determine that Overland, Digilink, and Rasilient make,
`
`use, offer to sell, sell or import (or have made, used, offered to sell, sold or imported) products
`
`other than those specifically called out below that infringe one or both of the '035 and '147
`
`Patents.
`
`Crossroads alleges that Overland has infringed the '035 Patent by making, using, and/or
`
`selling its REO Series of Virtual Tape Library appliances, 2 its NEO Tape Library line of
`
`products with library partitioning option ("LPO") and FC03 or GEOi2 cards3 and its
`
`ULTAMUS RAID products4 (collectively, the "Overland Products). Crossroads further alleges
`
`that Digilink has infringed the '035 Patent by making, using, and/or selling its Digiliant SAN
`
`Storage Server line of products with Open-E operating systemS ("Digiliant Open-E Storage
`
`Servers") and its Digiliant SAN Storage Server line of products running Windows Storage
`
`Server 2008 with iSCSI target operating system 6 ("Digiliant Windows Storage Servers")
`
`(collectively the "Digilink Products"). Crossroads further alleges that Rasilient has infringed the
`
`'035 Patent by making, using, and/or selling RASTOR Performance RAID Storage Systems 7 and
`
`its PixelS tor High Performance Video Storage System8 (collectively the "Rasilient Products").
`
`The Overland Products, Digilink Products and Rasilient Products are referred to collectively as
`
`the "Accused Products." Crossroads further alleges that Overland has infringed the' 147 Patent
`
`2 For example, Overland's REO 1000, 1500,2000,4000,4500, 4500c, 4600, 9000, 9100, 9100c and 9100D
`products.
`For example, Overland's NEO 2000, 2000E, 4000, 4000E and SOOO products.
`4 For example, Overland's ULTAMUS RAID 1200 and 4800 products.
`5 For cxample, Digilian!'s R4E124AD·NO, R4E136AD-NO, RI0104AD-NO, Sl0104AD-NO, S201OSAD-NO,
`R2010SAD-NO, R2EJ lAD-NO, R3E1l6AD-NO and R90148AD-NO products.
`6 For example, Digilian!'s SlO104AD-NW, S201 OSAD-NW, RI0104AD-NW, R201OSAD-NW, R2E112AD-NW,
`R3E116AD-NW, R4E122AD-NW, R4E124AD-NW, R4E134AD-NW and R9014SAD-NW products.
`7 For example, Rasilien!'s Rastor 3000, 3500, 4000, 6000, 7500 and S500 products.
`8 For example, Rasilient's PixelStor 3000 product.
`
`2
`
`Oracle Ex. 1224, pg. 2
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`

`
`Case 1:09-cv-00879-SS Document 60 Filed 04/07/10 Page 3 of 7
`
`by making, using, and/or selling its NEO Tape Library line of products with LPO and FC03
`
`cards (refened to as "Overland's Fibre-to-Fibre Products,,).9
`
`I.
`
`Overview ofthe '035 and '147 "Access Controls" Patents
`
`The '035 and '147 Patents disclose apparatus and methods for providing access controls
`
`between hosts and remote storage using native low level block protocol. The '035 Patent
`
`provides access controls between hosts and "remote" storage, where the storage is remote if the
`
`connection between host and storage includes any serial transport medium. The principle
`
`difference between the two patents is that the '147 Patent requires that the transport mediums
`
`between the host and storage be fibre channel transport mediums.lO
`
`II.
`
`'035 Patent
`
`With respect to Claim 1 (and the asserted claims depending from Claim 1) of the '035
`
`Patent, the Accused Products infringe by providing virtual local storage on remote storage
`
`devices to hosts by presenting the remote storage to hosts so that the storage appears to the host
`
`as locally connected storage (despite the fact the storage is remote from the host). Claim 1 of the
`
`'035 Patent recites various hardware limitations, such as a buffer, first controller, second
`
`controller and supervisor unit each of which are included in the Accused Products. The Accused
`
`Products inclnde a map that creates a path between the host and the storage that includes a
`
`representation of the host (e.g., the host worldwide name (WWN), host IF address, host iSCSI
`
`initiator name, or fibre channel port) and a representation of the storage device (e.g., a LUN or
`
`iSCSI target name). In this way, the Accnsed Products allocate subsets of storage to assigned
`
`hosts so that a particular subset of storage is accessible by only the appropriately assigned hosts,
`
`9 See supra [n 3.
`10 While a fibre channel transport medium is one example of a serial transport medium, there are a number of serial
`transport mediums that could connect devices in a network.
`
`3
`
`Oracle Ex. 1224, pg. 3
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`

`
`Case 1:09-cv-00879-SS Document 60 Filed 04/07/10 Page 4 of 7
`
`thereby controlling host access to the storage.l1 The Accused Products receive native low level
`
`block protocol commands (e.g., SCSI commands) from the hosts via their serial transport
`
`interface (e.g., fibre channel interface, iSCSI transport interface) to allow hosts to access storage
`
`using native low level block protocols (i.e., protocols that do not require the overhead of high
`
`level protocols or file systems typically required of network servers (e.g., the SCSI protocol».
`
`With respect to Claim 7 (and the asserted claims depending from Claim 7) of the '035
`
`Patent, Defendants each provide instructions to users regarding how to operate its Accused
`
`Products in a storage network. The Accused Products have no alternative function other than to
`
`operate in a storage network as claimed in Claim 7 of the '035 Patent. With respect to Claim 11
`
`(and the asserted dependent claims) of the '035 Patent, Defendants each provide instructions to
`
`users regarding how to perform the method of providing virtual local storage as claimed using its
`
`Accused Products. The Accused Products have no alternative function other than to operate in
`
`accordance with the method as claimed in Claim 11 of the '035 Patent. 12
`
`ill.
`
`'147 Patent
`
`As discussed above, the '147 Patent claims providing access controls between hosts and
`
`storage in a "fibre-to-fibre" system where hosts send fibre channel commands and fibre channel
`
`commands are sent to the storage. With respect to Claim 1 (and the asserted claims depending
`
`from Claim 1) of the '147 Patent, the Overland Fibre-to-Fibre Products control host to storage
`
`11 Overland describes the ability to provide the claimed access controls in several ways. The REO Series of Virtual
`Tape Library appliances assign "initiator access" to targets or assign libraries to ports, the ULT AMUS RAID
`products perform "SAN LUN mapping," the NEO Tape Library line of products "[map 1 back-end SCSI devices to
`front-end Fibre Channel Port LUNs" for Fibre Channel initiators and utilize "Access Control Lists" for iSCSI
`initiators. Digilink refers to the ability to provide the claimed access controls as assigning "Target IP Access" for
`the Open-E SAN Storage Servers or as specifYing "which initiators can connect to which targets" for the Windows
`SAN Storage Servers. Rasilient refers to the ability to provide the claimed access controls as LUN masking.
`Regardless of how it is phrased, each of the Accused Products includes the capability of mapping subsets of storage
`to hosts and only allowing a host to access a subset of stmage if the host is mapped to that subset of storage.
`12 Attached hereto as Exhibits A-I are claims charts showing infringement of the '035 Patent by exemplary products
`of each of the Defendants.
`
`4
`
`Oracle Ex. 1224, pg. 4
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`

`
`Case 1:09-cv-00879-SS Document 60 Filed 04/07/10 Page 5 of 7
`
`access and receive fibre channel commands from the host and send fibre channel commands to
`
`fibre channel storage.
`
`In addition, each of the Overland Fibre-to-Fibre Products maintains a
`
`configuration that maps between host devices and subsets of storage. The map maintained by the
`
`Accused Fibre-to-Fibre Products associates an FC port for a host with a LUN for storage and
`
`presents to such host only those LUNs that are mapped to it; thus preventing hosts from
`
`accessing storage not specifically associated with that host's FC port in the map. The Overland
`
`Fibre-to-Fibre Products otherwise generally operate like the Overland Products, as described
`
`above.
`
`With respect to Claim 6 (and the asserted claims depending from Claim 6) of the '147
`
`Patent, Overland provides instructions to users regarding how to operate the Overland Fibre-to-
`
`Fibre Products in a storage network. The Overland Fibre-to-Fibre Products have no alternative
`
`function other than to operate in a storage network as claimed in Claim 6 of the '147 Patent.
`
`With respect to Claims 21 and 34 (and the asserted claims depending from Claims 21 and 34) of
`
`the '147 Patent, Overland provides instructions to users regarding how to operate its Overland
`
`Fibre-to-Fibre Products in a system. The Overland Fibre-to-Fibre Products have no alternative
`
`function than to operate in a system as claimed in claims 21 and 34. With respect to Claims 10
`
`and 28 (and the asserted claims depending from claims 10 and 28) of the '147 Patent, Overland
`
`provides instructions to users regarding how to perform the method as claimed using its
`
`Overland Fibre-to-Fibre Products. The Overland Fibre-to-Fibre Products have no alternative
`
`function other than to operate in accordance with the methods as claimed in claims 10 and 28. 13
`
`13 Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a claims charts showing infringement of the '147 Patent by an exemplary Overland
`Fibre-to-Fibre Product.
`
`5
`
`Oracle Ex. 1224, pg. 5
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`

`
`Case 1:09-cv-00879-SS Document 60 Filed 04/07/10 Page 6 of 7
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: April 7, 2010
`
`By:
`
`lsi Elizabeth 1. Brown Fore
`Steven Sprinkle (Bar No. 00794962)
`ssprinkle@sprinklelaw.com
`Elizabeth J. Brown Fore (Bar No. 24001795)
`ebrownfore@sprinklelaw.com
`Sprinkle IP Law Group, PC
`1301 W. 25 th Street, Suite 408
`Austin, Texas 78705
`Tel: (512) 637-9220
`Fax: (512) 371-9088
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on the 7th day of April, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing with
`the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to
`the following:
`
`Paul V. Storm
`S. Scott Pershern (Pro Hac Vice)
`STORMLLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 7100
`Dallas, TX 75202
`
`Conor M. Civins
`Bradley D. Coburn
`CIVINS DENKO COBURN & LAUFF LLP
`816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1205
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`Zachary W. Behler (Pro Hac Vice)
`FOSTER, SWIFT, COLLINS & SMITH, P.C.
`313 South Washington Square
`Lansing, MI 48933-2193
`
`Katherine P. Chiarello
`RATLIFF LAW FIRM, PLLC
`600 Congress Avenue, Suite 3100
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`6
`
`Oracle Ex. 1224, pg. 6
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`
`

`
`Case 1:09-cv-00879-SS Document 60 Filed 04/07/10 Page 7 of 7
`
`Shawn E. McDonald (Pro Hac Vice)
`Amar Thakur (Pro Hac Vice)
`FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP
`11250 El Camino Real, Suite 200
`San Diego, CA 92130-2677
`
`Floyd R. Nation
`HOWREYLLP
`1111 Louisiana, 25th Floor
`Houston, TX 77002
`
`Brian L. Jackson
`LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN JACKSON
`1302 Waugh Drive, Suite582
`Houston, TX 77019,
`
`and I hereby certify that I have sent notification of such filing via U.S. First Class Mail to the
`following non-CM/ECF participants:
`
`T. J. Singh
`SangN.Dang
`KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP
`43 Corporate Park, Suite 204
`Irvine, CA 92606.
`
`lsi Elizabeth J. Brown Fore
`Elizabeth J. Brown Fore
`
`7
`
`Oracle Ex. 1224, pg. 7
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207