Hewlett-Packard Sued for Patent Infringement of Cloud Computing Technologies

A complaint filed in the Western District of Texas on Friday alleged that Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. has infringed several patents held by Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC. The defendant is accused of illegally using or incorporating Intellectual Ventures’ patented works in their products for data virtualization and storage.

Intellectual Ventures (IV) is one of the world’s “top patent filers” in a broad range of fields including agriculture, computer hardware, life sciences, medical devices, medical devices, semiconductors, and software. Four of IV’s patents have allegedly been infringed upon: Patent Nos. 7,555,586 titled “Apparatus and Method for Packet Based Storage Visualization”; 7,464,240 titled “Hybrid Solid State Drive with Controller”; 7,882,320 titled “Multi-processor Flash Memory Storage Device and Management System”; and 6,779,082 titled “Network-based Disk Redundancy Storage System and Method.” These inventions were created in order to solve problems that arose from cloud computing and the virtualization of computer resources, the complaint said.

Hewlett-Packard makes, uses, and sells enterprise and high-performance storage solutions, including virtualized storage and hyperconverged infrastructure solutions, and “builds on its above distributed storage offerings by adding advanced programmatic functionality.” HP is accused of infringing upon IV’s patents with their 3PAR StoreServ Storage System, architecture and other product offerings; and the SimpliVity series of HCI solutions “and any other HPE products and/or services, either alone or in combination, that operate in substantially the same manner.” The complaint alleged that HP “has been, and currently is, an active inducer of infringement [] and infringer of the [aforementioned] patents.”

Intellectual Ventures is seeking a declaration that HP infringed upon their asserted patents, damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney’s fees and costs, and other relief.

The plaintiffs are represented by Sorey & Gilliland, LLP  and Prince Lobel Tye LLP.