DCT

1:26-cv-00425

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Deere & Co

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00425, W.D. Tex., 02/24/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant Deere & Company maintains numerous regular and established places of business in the district, including its John Deere Austin Research & Development Center, also known as the "John Deere Intelligent Solutions Group."
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s agricultural technology products and services, including its mobile applications and backend computing platforms, infringe eight U.S. patents related to parallel programming, wireless networking, and cloud computing architecture.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit cover foundational technologies in distributed computing and wireless communications, which are critical for managing the large-scale data processing and device connectivity required in modern precision agriculture.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of at least six of the eight patents-in-suit via a notice letter dated February 23, 2026, the day before the complaint was filed. The complaint also alleges knowledge of two of these patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,332,844 and 11,206,670) from an earlier notice letter dated December 19, 2024.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-05-21 Priority Date: U.S. Patent No. 7,712,080
2004-01-12 Priority Date: U.S. Patent No. 8,027,326
2006-12-27 Priority Date: U.S. Patent No. 11,032,000
2007-02-21 Priority Date: U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
2007-09-27 Priority Date: U.S. Patent No. 10,136,416
2007-10-30 Priority Date: U.S. Patent No. 8,352,584
2007-10-31 Priority Date: U.S. Patent No. 7,822,841
2010-05-04 Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 7,712,080
2010-10-26 Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 7,822,841
2011-09-27 Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 8,027,326
2012-01-20 Priority Date: U.S. Patent No. 11,206,670
2012-12-11 Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
2013-01-08 Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 8,352,584
2018-11-20 Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 10,136,416
2021-06-08 Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 11,032,000
2021-12-21 Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 11,206,670
2024-12-19 Pre-suit notice letter sent to Defendant (re '844, '670 Patents)
2026-02-23 Pre-suit notice letter sent to Defendant (re all Patents-in-Suit)
2026-02-24 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,712,080 - "Systems and Methods for Parallel Distributed Programming"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the complexity of developing software for "parallel distributed programs," which operate across multiple processors and memory areas (Compl. ¶60; '080 Patent, col. 1:25-30). Conventional approaches are described as either inefficient, requiring large data transfers, or burdensome, forcing programmers to dramatically restructure code to handle message passing between processors ('080 Patent, col. 1:49-65).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to simplify parallel programming by transforming a sequential program into a parallel one. This is achieved by "spawning" a "child" computing program from a parent program when an "intermediate condition" is met, allowing the parent and child to execute concurrently ('080 Patent, abstract). This approach is designed to preserve the original program's structure while enabling parallel execution on distributed hardware ('080 Patent, col. 5:48-67).
  • Technical Importance: This programming model aimed to abstract the complexities of inter-processor communication, potentially making it easier to adapt algorithms designed for single-processor systems to run efficiently on distributed computing clusters (Compl. ¶60).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent method claim 9 (Compl. ¶60).
  • Claim 9 recites, in part, a method comprising:
    • Establishing a "distributed shared variable."
    • Developing a "distributed sequential computing program" to access the variable.
    • "transforming" the sequential program into a parallel program "by spawning at least one child distributed sequential computing program...when at least one intermediate condition occurs."
    • The parent and spawned child programs "concurrently" perform "parallel processing."
    • The intermediate condition comprises a result that is required by the spawned child program to continue its computation.
  • The complaint identifies "example claims," suggesting that additional claims may be asserted later in the litigation (Compl. ¶58).

U.S. Patent No. 8,027,326 - "Method and System for High Data Rate Multi-Channel WLAN Architecture"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need to increase bandwidth and data rates in Wi-Fi (WLAN) systems to meet growing traffic demands (Compl. ¶76). It notes that legacy radios were designed with assumptions (e.g., stable channels, short transmissions) that are not always valid in modern mobile applications, where higher accuracy is needed to achieve lower error rates at higher speeds ('326 Patent, col. 3:41-55).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for increasing data rates by combining two adjacent wireless channels. The core of the solution is to "partially fill[] the frequency gap" that normally separates two channels by "adding one or more data subcarriers" into that gap ('326 Patent, abstract; Compl. ¶76). This technique utilizes the "full spectral synthesis capability of a fast fourier transform" to create a wider, more efficient composite channel from two standard channels ('326 Patent, col. 18:49-54).
  • Technical Importance: The described technique is an early approach to channel bonding, a fundamental concept later adopted in Wi-Fi standards like 802.11n and 802.11ac to achieve significantly higher throughput by aggregating spectrum resources (Compl. ¶76).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶76).
  • Claim 1 recites, in part, a method comprising:
    • Selecting adjacent first and second channels separated by a frequency gap corresponding to guard bands.
    • "partially filling the frequency gap" by "adding one or more data subcarriers into the frequency gap" such that the guard bands are at least partially filled.
    • This is performed using the "full spectral synthesis capability of a fast fourier transform or an inverse fast fourier transform."
    • "combining" the channels using channel bonding with Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM).
    • Transmitting data subcarriers across the first channel, second channel, and the frequency gap in parallel.
  • The complaint refers to "example claims," reserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶74).

U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844 - "Root Image Caching and Indexing for Block-Level Distributed Application Management"

  • Patent Identification: 8,332,844, issued December 11, 2012.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the inefficiency of updating boot images across multiple nodes in a computing cluster (Compl. ¶92). The described solution uses a "root image" for common data and "leaf images" for node-specific changes, avoiding the need to update numerous complete copies of the boot image (Compl. ¶92).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least Claim 7 (Compl. ¶92).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses John Deere's use of distributed application management technologies like Docker and Kubernetes (Compl. ¶32).

U.S. Patent No. 8,352,584 - "Systems for Hosting Customized Computing Clusters"

  • Patent Identification: 8,352,584, issued January 8, 2013.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to managing secure, customizable computer clusters, addressing problems with multi-cluster configuration and resource usage (Compl. ¶108). The invention describes a system of isolated clusters, each with its own gateway to a private network, and a monitoring system to detect communication problems (Compl. ¶108).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶108).
  • Accused Features: The complaint generally accuses John Deere's use of cluster technologies such as Kubernetes (Compl. ¶32).

U.S. Patent No. 10,136,416 - "Communicating on a Shared Channel in a Wireless Network"

  • Patent Identification: 10,136,416, issued November 20, 2018.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of reusing channel timeslots in a cellular network efficiently without increasing power requirements (Compl. ¶123). The solution involves a user device (UE) receiving broadcast information indicating which time intervals are used for signaling and monitoring those intervals to determine if information for that specific UE is present (Compl. ¶123).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶123).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses John Deere products and services that provide LTE connectivity (Compl. ¶127).

U.S. Patent No. 7,822,841 - "Method and System for Hosting Multiple, Customized Computing Clusters"

  • Patent Identification: 7,822,841, issued October 26, 2010.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to secure, customizable computer clusters, addressing technical issues with multi-cluster configuration management and monitoring individual cluster components (Compl. ¶139). The invention describes a hierarchical monitoring system that identifies operational and connectivity problems and issues alerts, comprising both a main monitor and individual monitors for each node (Compl. ¶139).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶139).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses John Deere's use of cluster management technologies like Kubernetes (Compl. ¶32).

U.S. Patent No. 11,032,000 - "Communications in a Wireless Network"

  • Patent Identification: 11,032,000, issued June 8, 2021.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses a lack of channel reciprocity in wireless systems, where uplink and downlink conditions are not correlated, creating problems for uplink power control (Compl. ¶155). The solution involves a UE sending a specific uplink physical signal during a non-transmission interval, which a base station uses to determine channel conditions and send back control information (Compl. ¶155).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least Claims 1 and 14 (Compl. ¶155).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses John Deere products and services that provide LTE connectivity (Compl. ¶159).

U.S. Patent No. 11,206,670 - "Communication in a Wireless Network Using Restricted Bandwidths"

  • Patent Identification: 11,206,670, issued December 21, 2021.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the use of "relatively inexpensive and less complex devices" on advanced LTE networks designed for wide bandwidth (Compl. ¶171). The invention describes communication using a "subordinate carrier" within a larger "host carrier," where the device acquires system information from specified frequency and time resources (Compl. ¶171).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶171).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses John Deere products and services that provide LTE connectivity (Compl. ¶174).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "Accused Products and Services" as a broad category of John Deere technologies, including but not limited to those utilizing LTE, Wi-Fi, Kubernetes, Docker, and Spark (Compl. ¶32). More specifically, the "John Deere Mobile Apps," such as "Equipment Mobile" and "Connect Mobile," are named as accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶23).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Products and Services form the technological foundation for John Deere's precision agriculture and connected vehicle offerings (Compl. ¶¶6-7). This includes backend systems for data processing and mobile applications for user interaction.
  • The John Deere Mobile Apps provide customers and employees with tools for equipment monitoring, product research, parts ordering, and accessing technical manuals (Compl. ¶24). One visual in the complaint depicts a mobile app that appears to allow users to scan barcodes on equipment (Compl. p. 9). Another shows an in-cab display providing real-time performance data from a piece of machinery (Compl. p. 10).
  • Backend infrastructure allegedly uses platforms like Kubernetes, Docker, and Spark to manage distributed applications and perform parallel data processing (Compl. ¶32). These systems are allegedly tested and developed at John Deere's R&D location in Austin, Texas (Compl. ¶¶14-19).
  • The complaint alleges these technologies are commercially important and that John Deere derives substantial revenue from them (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits for its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶68; Compl. ¶84). The narrative infringement theories for the lead patents are summarized below.

'080 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that John Deere's backend systems, which use technologies like Spark and Kubernetes, infringe the '080 patent's claims for parallel distributed programming (Compl. ¶32; Compl. ¶58). The core of the infringement theory is that these accused systems transform a single computing task into a parallel one by distributing it across multiple processors or nodes (Compl. ¶60). The complaint alleges that this process meets the claim limitation of "transforming the... sequential computing program into... parallel computing program by spawning at least one child... program" (Compl. ¶60). The complaint's visual of the "Connect Mobile" app, which displays detailed machine performance metrics, is presented as an example of a user-facing service powered by such backend parallel processing systems (Compl. p. 10). The overall management of these distributed tasks by the accused platforms is alleged to constitute the claimed "concurrently" performing "parallel processing" (Compl. ¶60).

'326 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that John Deere products and services incorporating Wi-Fi functionality infringe the '326 patent (Compl. ¶32; Compl. ¶74). The infringement theory is based on the premise that modern Wi-Fi, to maintain backward compatibility, must support Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) as used in legacy standards (Compl. ¶76). The complaint alleges that high-data-rate Wi-Fi modes achieve increased bandwidth by combining adjacent channels in a manner that practices the claimed method of "partially filling the frequency gap" between channels with "one or more data subcarriers" (Compl. ¶76). This appears to map the general concept of channel bonding, common in modern Wi-Fi, onto the specific method described in the patent. The complaint provides a screenshot of the "Equipment Mobile" app, which relies on network connectivity to provide features like parts ordering, as an example of an infringing product (Compl. p. 9).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A recurring point of contention may be whether the specific methods claimed in the patents, some of which predate modern technology standards, can be construed to cover the complex, standardized implementations in the accused products. For the '326 patent, a question is whether modern Wi-Fi channel bonding is technically equivalent to the claimed method of adding subcarriers into a frequency gap. For the '080 patent, a question is whether the architecture of platforms like Kubernetes or Spark aligns with the claimed method of "spawning" a "child program" from a "sequential program."
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis may raise questions about the actual operation of the accused systems. For the '326 patent, what evidence demonstrates that the accused Wi-Fi devices perform the specific function of "partially filling" a guard band with new subcarriers, as required by claim 1? For the '080 patent, what evidence shows that a task initiated in an accused Spark system constitutes a "spawned child distributed sequential computing program" that requires a specific "intermediate result" from its parent, as the claim recites?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '080 Patent (from Claim 9)

  • The Term: "transforming... by spawning at least one child distributed sequential computing program"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed method of converting a sequential process to a parallel one. The construction of "spawning a child... program" will be critical in determining whether modern distributed computing frameworks, which operate on concepts like tasks, jobs, and containers, fall within the scope of the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the invention in general terms as "improved systems and methods for parallel distributed programming" ('080 Patent, col. 2:3-4), which may support a broader reading of "spawning" to mean initiating any subsidiary computational process.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification illustrates the concept with a "clone_hop()" command ('080 Patent, FIG. 3(b)), which suggests "spawning" may be limited to creating a clone or a near-copy of the parent thread that migrates to another processor, a potentially narrower concept than simply dispatching a new task.

For the '326 Patent (from Claim 1)

  • The Term: "partially filling the frequency gap... by adding one or more data subcarriers into the frequency gap"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the specific technical mechanism for combining channels. Its construction will determine whether the claimed method is distinct from or encompasses standardized channel bonding techniques used in modern Wi-Fi.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's overall goal is to achieve "high data rate multi-channel WLAN architecture" ('326 Patent, title), which could support interpreting the term to cover any method that utilizes the spectrum between two channels to increase data rate.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim's reference to using "full spectral synthesis capability of a fast fourier transform" ('326 Patent, col. 18:52-53) to add subcarriers "into the frequency gap" may support a narrow construction limited to a specific, non-standard method of signal generation, as opposed to simply selecting a predefined wider channel that covers the gap.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all eight patents-in-suit. The allegations for inducement are based on Defendant allegedly encouraging and instructing its customers, vendors, and employees to use the Accused Products and Services in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶64; Compl. ¶80). The contributory infringement allegations assert that Defendant knowingly provides software and technologies that are not staple articles of commerce and are especially adapted for infringement (e.g., Compl. ¶66; Compl. ¶82).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement for all patents, asserting that Defendant knew or should have known of the patents but was "willfully blind to [their] existence" (e.g., Compl. ¶63; Compl. ¶79). This allegation is primarily based on actual knowledge allegedly established by notice letters dated December 19, 2024, and February 23, 2026 (Compl. ¶95; Compl. ¶173).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of technological scope: can the specific methods for parallel programming and wireless communication, as claimed in patents filed between 2003 and 2012, be construed to cover the standardized and highly complex architectures of modern technology platforms like Kubernetes, Spark, LTE, and contemporary Wi-Fi?
  2. A second key issue will be one of architectural equivalence: for the software and systems patents, does the operation of Deere’s accused platforms map onto the specific steps and structures recited in the claims (e.g., "spawning a child program," using "leaf images"), or do they represent fundamentally different technical approaches to achieving similar high-level goals in distributed computing?
  3. A central evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: beyond broad accusations against entire technology stacks, the case may turn on whether Plaintiff can provide concrete evidence that the accused John Deere products and services perform the precise, granular functions required by each element of the asserted claims.
Loading Complaint