Google LLC v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Google LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Valtrus Innovations Ltd. (Ireland) and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. (Ireland)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hogan Lovells US LLP
• Case Identification: 3:26-cv-00363, N.D. Cal., 01/13/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Google alleges venue is proper because Defendants are foreign entities subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred, including licensing communications directed to Google in Northern California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff Google LLC seeks a declaratory judgment that its cloud products and services, particularly those utilizing Kubernetes, Apache Hadoop, and Apache Kafka, do not infringe nine U.S. patents asserted by Defendants Valtrus Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue involve methods for managing, monitoring, and ensuring the reliability of large-scale, distributed computing systems, which are foundational to modern cloud infrastructure and data processing services.
• Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action follows a multi-year campaign by Defendants, who acquired a large patent portfolio from Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE). The complaint details Defendants' communications with Google and Google's customers, accusing them of infringement. Defendants have also filed numerous infringement lawsuits against other major technology companies, as well as four prior lawsuits against Google, asserting different patents from the same HPE portfolio.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,379,538 - "Model-Driven Monitoring Architecture," Issued February 19, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests the patent addresses the challenge of maintaining and configuring monitoring systems in complex and dynamic IT environments, where the components being monitored (e.g., servers, applications) frequently change Compl. ¶43 Manually reconfiguring monitoring tools after every environmental change is inefficient and error-prone.
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "model-driven" architecture where a central, "machine-readable monitoring model" defines the configuration of the entire monitoring environment '538 Patent, abstract When a change occurs in the environment's configuration, the model is updated, and individual monitoring elements are designed to read this model and "autonomously adapt" their operations to the new configuration without manual intervention Compl. ¶43 '538 Patent, abstract
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to automate the management of monitoring systems in large-scale, fluid environments like cloud data centers, where manual configuration is impractical Compl. ¶¶7-8, 12

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies independent method Claim 7 as an example asserted claim Compl. ¶43
• Essential elements of Claim 7 include:
  • providing a machine-readable monitoring model that defines configuration of a monitoring environment;
  • responsive to a change occurring in said monitoring environment's configuration, said machine-readable monitoring model updating to reflect said change; and
  • an element of said monitoring environment reading said machine-readable model and autonomously adapting its operation to the changed configuration.

U.S. Patent No. 7,251,588 - "System for Metric Introspection in Monitoring Sources," Issued July 31, 2007

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent appears to solve the problem of monitoring tools being tightly coupled to the specific systems they monitor '588 Patent, col. 1:33-50 Traditionally, a tool must be pre-programmed or "hard-coded" with the exact definitions of the metrics (e.g., name, unit, data type) it collects, making it difficult to adapt to new systems or changes in metric definitions Compl. ¶50
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system of "metric introspection," where metric definitions are stored in a "machine-readable format" that a monitoring tool can access '588 Patent, abstract This allows the tool to dynamically discover and comprehend the metrics available from a monitored component, enabling it to process the collected data correctly without prior, hard-coded knowledge of those specific metrics Compl. ¶49
• Technical Importance: This technology facilitates the development of more flexible and universal monitoring tools that can autonomously adapt to diverse and evolving IT systems, a key requirement for managing heterogeneous cloud environments.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies independent method Claim 13 as an example asserted claim Compl. ¶49
• Essential elements of Claim 13 include:
  • storing metric definitions for at least one monitored component in a machine-readable format to a data storage device;
  • a monitoring tool accessing the machine-readable metric definitions to determine the metric definitions used in monitoring data;
  • the monitoring tool accessing said monitoring data; and
  • the monitoring tool processing the monitoring data based at least in part on the corresponding metric definitions.

U.S. Patent No. 8,370,416 - "Compatibility Enforcement in Clustered Computing Systems," Issued February 5, 2013

• Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to methods for creating and managing clustered computing systems based on licensing information. It describes storing a "bundle-type parameter" that identifies characteristics like the authorized size of a cluster and activating the cluster only when the number of nodes complies with this parameter Compl. ¶55
• Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies Claim 1 as an example claim Compl. ¶55
• Accused Features: Google Kubernetes Engine is accused of infringement Compl. ¶55

U.S. Patent No. 7,640,332 - "System and Method for Hot Deployment/Redeployment in Grid Computing Environment," Issued December 29, 2009

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for updating applications in a grid computing environment without downtime ("hot deployment"). The process involves adding a new application version to a repository, using a discovery service to find nodes running the application, and notifying those nodes to use a "hot deployment plug-in" to update Compl. ¶61
• Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies Claim 1 as an example claim Compl. ¶61
• Accused Features: Google Kubernetes Engine is accused of infringement Compl. ¶61

U.S. Patent No. 7,904,686 - "Data Security for use with a File System," Issued March 8, 2011

• Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to a method of data security where logical data block numbers from a file's index node are transformed by a "mapping function" to derive the actual physical storage addresses, obfuscating the direct link between a file's metadata and its data's physical location Compl. ¶67
• Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies Claim 1 as an example claim Compl. ¶67
• Accused Features: Google's Managed Service for Hadoop is accused of infringement Compl. ¶67

U.S. Patent No. 7,730,218 - "Method and System for Configuration and Management of Client Access to Network-Attached-Storage," Issued June 1, 2010

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system where a "master-agent" continuously runs on a network, constructing and forwarding executable code blocks to target computers. When executed, these code blocks automatically connect the target computer to a specified network-attached storage (NAS) object Compl. ¶73
• Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies Claim 1 as an example claim Compl. ¶73
• Accused Features: Google's Managed Service for Hadoop is accused of infringement Compl. ¶73

U.S. Patent No. 7,936,738 - "Fault Tolerant Systems," Issued May 3, 2011

• Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for preserving system state in communications. It involves "selectively indicating" to a layer in a protocol stack that its context information should be obtained and added to an outgoing message, ensuring that a response to that message will contain the context needed for state restoration Compl. ¶79
• Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies Claim 1 as an example claim Compl. ¶79
• Accused Features: Google's Managed Service for Kafka is accused of infringement Compl. ¶79

U.S. Patent No. 7,376,953 - "Apparatus and Method for Routing a Transaction to a Server," Issued May 20, 2008

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for routing transactions to front-end servers based on an "attribute-based category." The system attempts to identify a server assigned to that category and routes the transaction accordingly, falling back to a default server if no specific assignment is found Compl. ¶86
• Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies Claim 1 as an example claim Compl. ¶86
• Accused Features: Google's Managed Service for Kafka is accused of infringement Compl. ¶86

U.S. Patent No. 6,889,244 - "Method and Apparatus for Passing Messages Using a Fault Tolerant Storage System," Issued May 3, 2005

• Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for reliable message passing between nodes using a Fault Tolerant Storage System (FTSS) as an intermediary. A message is sent to a communication agent in the FTSS, stored reliably, processed according to a "messaging paradigm," and then transmitted from the FTSS to the destination node Compl. ¶92
• Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies Claim 1 as an example claim Compl. ¶92
• Accused Features: Google's Managed Service for Kafka is accused of infringement Compl. ¶92

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint targets three major open-source software (OSS) platforms and Google's managed cloud services based on them: Kubernetes (via Google Kubernetes Engine), Apache Hadoop (via Managed Service for Hadoop), and Apache Kafka (via Managed Service for Kafka) Compl. ¶¶12-13

Functionality and Market Context

The accused instrumentalities are foundational technologies for modern cloud computing. Kubernetes is an orchestration system for managing containerized applications at scale Compl. ¶8 Apache Hadoop is a framework for distributed storage and processing of very large datasets ("big data") Compl. ¶1 Apache Kafka is a distributed event streaming platform used for high-throughput, real-time data pipelines Compl. ¶1 Google offers managed versions of these platforms as core components of its Google Cloud services, which are used by Google's customers for a wide range of applications Compl. ¶¶6-7 The complaint alleges that Defendants' accusations target customers' use of these technologies through Google's services Compl. ¶5

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As this is a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the following tables summarize Plaintiff Google's arguments for why its products do not meet the limitations of the asserted claims.

'538 Patent Infringement Allegations

'588 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• For the ’538 Patent, a central dispute may concern the scope of the term "configuration." Google's position suggests that a "configuration" change is a structural alteration of the environment (e.g., adding a server), distinct from a dynamic change in an operational "metric" (e.g., CPU load). The case may turn on whether the patent's specification supports this distinction.
• For the ’588 Patent, the analysis raises the question of what constitutes "storing metric definitions... in a machine-readable format." The dispute may focus on whether the method by which Kubernetes provides metric information (e.g., via an API) is technically equivalent to the claimed method, or if it represents a non-infringing alternative, as Google's "hardcoded metrics" argument suggests.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "a change occurring in said monitoring environment's configuration" (from '538 Patent, Claim 7)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical to Google's non-infringement argument for the ’538 Patent. The case may depend on whether a change in a performance metric, which triggers Google's autoscaling, falls within the definition of a "configuration" change. Practitioners may focus on this term because it draws a line between reactive adaptation to performance (what Google alleges its product does) and adaptation to structural changes (what Google alleges the patent claims).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail from the patent's specification for a full analysis.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A broader reading could be supported if the patent's specification describes performance thresholds or operational states as part of the environment's "configuration."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A narrower reading, which would support Google's position, could be supported if the specification's examples of "configuration" changes are limited to adding, removing, or modifying hardware or software components in the monitored system.

Term: "storing metric definitions ... in a machine-readable format" (from '588 Patent, Claim 13)

• Context and Importance: The construction of this term is central to Google's argument that its use of "hardcoded metrics" in Kubernetes Engine does not infringe the ’588 Patent. The dispute will likely center on whether the way Kubernetes exposes metric metadata qualifies as the claimed "storing" of "definitions."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail from the patent's specification for a full analysis.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Language in the specification suggesting that any machine-parsable method of conveying metric definitions (such as via an API response) meets the "storing" limitation could support a broader interpretation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: If the patent's embodiments consistently show metric definitions being stored in distinct files or database tables that are then read by a tool, it could support a narrower interpretation that distinguishes this method from the integrated or "hardcoded" approach Google alleges it uses.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

As this is a declaratory judgment action, Google is seeking a declaration that it does not induce or contributorily infringe the Patents-in-Suit Compl., prayer B Compl., prayer C The complaint affirmatively states that Google has not "caused, directed, requested, or facilitated any such infringement" and that Google Kubernetes Engine has "substantial uses that do not infringe" Compl. ¶¶44, 50 This language directly addresses the legal standards for non-infringement by inducement and contributory infringement.

Willful Infringement

This allegation is not applicable, as Google is the plaintiff seeking a judgment of non-infringement.

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

This declaratory judgment action will likely revolve around a few central technical and legal questions for the court to resolve.

• Definitional Scope: A core issue across multiple patents, particularly the '538 Patent, will be one of definitional scope. For example, can the term "configuration" change, as used in the patent, be construed to cover dynamic shifts in performance "metrics" that trigger autoscaling in Google's Kubernetes Engine, or is its meaning limited to structural changes to the monitored environment?
• Equivalence of Technical Implementation: A key evidentiary question, central to the '588 Patent and others, will be one of functional equivalence. Does the way modern, open-source systems like Kubernetes and Kafka operate—for example, by exposing "hardcoded" metrics via APIs or using a storage-and-retrieval paradigm—perform the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result as the specific methods claimed in the patents, such as storing "machine-readable metric definitions" or using a "messaging paradigm"?
• System-Level Infringement: The allegations span nine patents and three complex, multi-component software platforms. A significant challenge will be to determine whether the combination of components in Google's managed services, as used by its customers, practices the full sequence of steps required by each asserted method claim, or if there are fundamental mismatches in the overall system architecture and operation.