Datasphere LLC v. Equinix Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DataSphere, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: Equinix, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Folio Law Group PLLC; CHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND JAMES
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00075, E.D. Tex., 01/28/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a "regular and established place of business" in the district, specifically its DA7 Data Center, and because the accused services are provided from facilities within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s data center and network interconnection services infringe four patents related to high-performance data storage, I/O decoupling, long-distance optical transport, and dynamic network routing.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on foundational technologies for modern data centers and high-speed networks, which are critical for cloud computing, enterprise data storage, and global internet infrastructure.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,640,381 - "Input/Output Decoupling System Method Having a Cache for Exchanging Data Between Non-Volatile Storage and Plurality of Clients Having Asynchronous Transfers"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,640,381, titled "Input/Output Decoupling System Method Having a Cache for Exchanging Data Between Non-Volatile Storage and Plurality of Clients Having Asynchronous Transfers," issued December 29, 2009.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses performance bottlenecks in storage systems where fast processors are slowed down by the mechanical latencies of disk drives (e.g., seek and rotational delays) (Compl. ¶17; ’381 Patent, col. 1:26-34). Conventional caching systems can suffer from performance degradation due to low cache hit rates and contention for the data path, a phenomenon known as "thrashing" ’381 Patent, col. 2:28-39
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an "I/O accelerator" that acts as an intelligent intermediary between host computers (clients) and non-volatile storage (e.g., disk arrays) ’381 Patent, abstract This accelerator uses a large cache and decouples the data transfer timing on the host side from the asynchronous data transfer timing on the storage side, managing data flow to optimize throughput and prevent storage system thrashing ’381 Patent, col. 3:5-19; ’381 Patent, Fig. 2
• Technical Importance: This I/O decoupling technology aims to improve efficiency and performance in high-demand, multi-client storage environments, which are characteristic of modern data centers Compl. ¶17

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent apparatus Claim 25 Compl. ¶41
• Essential elements of Claim 25 include:
  • A storage interface for communicating with a non-volatile storage system.
  • A host interface for communicating with multiple clients.
  • A cache configured to buffer communications between storage and clients, with a dedicated buffer for each client.
  • Circuitry configured to identify a data transfer rate to a client that is based on the amount of data available in that client's buffer and is "decoupled from asynchronous transfers over the storage interface."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims Compl. ¶41

U.S. Patent No. 7,782,778 - "Apparatus and Method for Fibre Channel Distance Extension Embedded Within an Optical Transport System"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,782,778, titled "Apparatus and Method for Fibre Channel Distance Extension Embedded Within an Optical Transport System," issued August 24, 2010.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the challenges of extending Fibre Channel-based Storage Area Networks (SANs) over long geographical distances Compl. ¶21 Traditional methods using public networks like SONET or IP can introduce latency, bit errors, security risks, and throughput degradation due to protocol conversion and packet loss (’778 Patent, col. 2:38-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes embedding the distance extension functionality directly into the optical transport equipment ’778 Patent, abstract It aggregates multiple Fibre Channel data streams into a single high-speed optical signal and uses a proprietary flow control mechanism that monitors buffer memory availability at the receiving (egress) terminal to manage data transmission from the sending (ingress) terminal. This ensures that data is only sent when there is space to receive it, maximizing throughput over long distances without data loss ’778 Patent, col. 6:1-5; ’778 Patent, col. 15:61-67
• Technical Importance: This approach enables reliable, high-performance, and secure long-distance SAN connectivity for applications such as disaster recovery and business continuity, a critical need for large enterprises Compl. ¶21 ’778 Patent, col. 1:64-67

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method Claim 25 Compl. ¶48
• Essential elements of Claim 25 include:
  • Determining whether memory in an egress terminal is available to store data, based at least in part on the amount of data already transmitted to that terminal.
  • Allowing data transmission from a first network to an ingress terminal only when the egress memory is available.
  • Receiving the data from the first network.
  • Transmitting the data over the optical transport system from the ingress to the egress terminal.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims Compl. ¶48

U.S. Patent No. 7,203,172 - "Internodal Routing Engine For A Next Generation Network"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,203,172, "Internodal Routing Engine For A Next Generation Network," issued April 10, 2007.
• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses routing calls in a hybrid network comprising both packet-switched (e.g., VoIP) and traditional circuit-switched (PSTN) components (’172 Patent, col. 1:6-11). The invention describes a routing engine within a "softswitch" that uses the geographic location of a call's destination to select the nearest softswitch for call termination, thereby maximizing the use of the more cost-effective packet network and minimizing usage of the PSTN ’172 Patent, abstract; ’172 Patent, col. 2:28-43
• Asserted Claims: Independent method Claim 1 Compl. ¶55
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Equinix's network infrastructure and services of practicing the patented methods, alleging they are used for routing Voice over IP (VoIP) traffic in a hybrid network environment Compl. ¶¶37-38

U.S. Patent No. 7,529,239 - "Distributed Dynamic Routing"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,529,239, "Distributed Dynamic Routing," issued May 5, 2009.
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method to improve routing efficiency in packet-switched networks by reducing redundant, hop-by-hop routing decisions at the network layer (L3) (’239 Patent, col. 2:3-8). The patented solution involves a "source edge device" that, upon receiving a packet, determines the optimal "target edge device" for the packet's destination. The packet is then transmitted directly to the target edge device over an internal network at the data link layer (L2), bypassing intermediate L3 routing decisions within that internal network ’239 Patent, abstract
• Asserted Claims: Independent method Claim 1 Compl. ¶62
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Equinix's network services, including Equinix Network Edge and Equinix Fabric, employ edge devices to route packets in a distributed and dynamic manner that infringes the patent Compl. ¶¶29, 38

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Equinix's data center and network interconnection services, including "Equinix Data Centers, Equinix Network Edge, Platform Equinix, [and] Equinix Fabric" Compl. ¶39

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused instrumentalities as providing the physical and network infrastructure for modern digital services. The allegations focus on two main functionalities:
  1. Data Storage and Transport: Equinix's IBX Data Centers are alleged to use high-speed transport systems, such as Fibre Channel, that employ switching, buffering, and flow-control mechanisms to connect clients with storage infrastructure Compl. ¶¶36, 39
  2. Dynamic Routing: Equinix's network services are alleged to perform dynamic routing of data across internal and external networks, including for VoIP traffic Compl. ¶¶37-38 These services are central to Equinix's business as a major global provider of colocation and interconnection services.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits detailing its infringement theories Compl. ¶¶43, 50, 57, 64 The following summarizes the narrative infringement allegations for the lead patents.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• ’381 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 25):
  The complaint alleges that Equinix's data center services, which utilize buffered transport systems for data storage, constitute the infringing "apparatus" Compl. ¶¶36, 41 The infringement theory suggests that Equinix's infrastructure includes interfaces to storage systems and clients (meeting elements [A] and [B] of Claim 25), uses caching with buffers associated with specific clients (element [C]), and employs control systems ("circuitry") to manage data transfers at rates determined by buffer fullness, thereby decoupling the client-facing transfer from the storage-facing transfer (element [D]) Compl. ¶42

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A potential point of contention is whether Equinix's large-scale, distributed infrastructure constitutes a single "apparatus" as contemplated by the patent.
    • Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on whether the complaint can substantiate that Equinix's flow-control mechanisms perform the specific function of identifying a data rate "based on an amount of data existing in the buffer" and achieve the "decoupling" from asynchronous storage transfers in the precise manner claimed.

• ’778 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 25):
  The complaint alleges that Equinix's optical transport and interconnection services practice the claimed method for controlling data flow over long distances Compl. ¶¶39, 48 The theory posits that Equinix’s systems determine available memory at a destination (egress) terminal based on data transmission volumes (element [A]), permit data transmission from a source (ingress) terminal only when such memory is confirmed to be available (element [B]), and then receive and transmit the data across its optical network (elements [C] and [D]) Compl. ¶49

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: Key questions will likely involve the specific mechanism by which the accused systems "determine" memory availability at an egress terminal and whether that determination is "based at least in part on a data amount transmitted" as required by the claim. The complaint does not specify the technical details of this alleged process.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term from ’381 Patent, Claim 25: "circuitry configured to: identify a data rate... decoupled from asynchronous transfers over the storage interface"

  • Context and Importance: This term captures the core functional element of the invention. The outcome of the infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the general-purpose flow-control and traffic-shaping systems in Equinix's infrastructure can be mapped onto this specific definition of "circuitry" and its "decoupling" function.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the decoupling function in broad terms, stating, "The transfer is completely decoupled between the host interface 118 and the channel interface 116" ’381 Patent, col. 5:34-36 This could support an interpretation covering any hardware or software combination that achieves this functional separation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description illustrates a specific "I/O accelerator" architecture comprising a host manager, buffer manager, and function manager ’381 Patent, Fig. 2; ’381 Patent, col. 4:55-61 A defendant may argue that the term "circuitry" is limited by these specific embodiments to an integrated hardware accelerator, not a distributed software-based control system.

• Term from ’778 Patent, Claim 25: "determining whether a memory in an egress terminal is available based at least in part on a data amount transmitted to the egress terminal"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the feedback mechanism for the patent's proprietary flow control. The dispute will likely focus on whether Equinix's systems use a functionally similar mechanism for managing buffer availability over its network.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim's use of "based at least in part" suggests that the "data amount transmitted" need only be one factor in the determination, potentially allowing for a broad reading. The specification also describes the general concept of using far-end buffer status to manage data flow ’778 Patent, col. 6:1-5
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides detailed pseudocode tables showing a specific implementation where a variable tracking transmitted bytes (FLOW_CONTROL.Transmitted) is used to update a far-end availability counter (Far_End_Available) ’778 Patent, Tables 4-5 A defendant could argue that the term "determining" should be construed to require this specific type of credit-based calculation tied directly to byte counts.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint asserts only direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.

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

This case will likely center on the following high-level questions for the court:

1. A question of technical implementation: Can the specific control and routing mechanisms described in the asserted patents, which are detailed in the context of integrated hardware ("I/O accelerator") or specific network protocols (PSTN/VoIP), be shown to be practiced by Equinix's large-scale, distributed, and multi-protocol data center infrastructure? The dispute will likely focus on whether there is a fundamental mismatch between the patented solutions and the technical operation of the accused services.

2. A question of definitional scope: Can claim terms rooted in specific technical contexts—such as "circuitry" performing I/O decoupling (’381 Patent), a flow-control method based on "data amount transmitted" (’778 Patent), and network elements like a "softswitch" (’172 Patent)—be construed broadly enough to read on the complex, software-defined systems that manage modern data center fabrics?