DataCloud Technologies v. Commvault Systems: Four-Patent Infringement Action Dismissed in 66 Days
DataCloud Technologies, LLC filed suit against Commvault Systems, Inc. in the District of Delaware asserting four patents covering website infrastructure, user-account configuration, backup scheduling, and KVM-based virtualization. The case closed in just 66 days via a stipulated dismissal — one of the faster resolutions seen in Delaware patent dockets.
Four-patent broadside against Commvault’s core infrastructure ends swiftly
On 18 November 2024, DataCloud Technologies, LLC filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware before Judge Gregory B. Williams. The complaint targeted Commvault Systems, Inc. — a publicly traded data protection and management software company — across four distinct technology areas: multi-domain website infrastructure (US7209959B1), internet-based data storage (US6560613B1), virtual machine management (US8156499B2), and network-based data management (US7398298B2).
The case closed on 23 January 2025 — just 66 days after filing — when a Stipulation of Dismissal was filed by Commvault Systems, Inc. and the court issued its ‘SO ORDERED’ endorsement. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Case Dismissed.’ The public docket does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, leaving the door to refiling legally ambiguous based on available records.
A 66-day lifespan from complaint to dismissal is notably short, even for cases that settle early. This timeline — which predates any substantive motion practice or claim construction — is consistent with either a pre-litigation licensing arrangement reached shortly after service, or a strategic decision by DataCloud to withdraw. The absence of a recorded settlement payment or prejudice designation means the full commercial terms, if any, remain unknown from the public record.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 66 days
66 days — well under the Delaware district median for patent cases, suggesting early resolution
Stipulated dismissal in 66 days: what the docket reveals and conceals
Stipulated dismissal: both sides agreed to end the case
A stipulated dismissal means both plaintiff and defendant agreed — without a trial or dispositive ruling — to close the case. The court’s ‘SO ORDERED’ endorsement formalises the agreement. Crucially, the docket does not specify whether dismissal was with or without prejudice, which determines whether DataCloud could refile the same claims against Commvault in the future.
Consensual terminationWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ permanently bars the plaintiff from reasserting the same patents against the same defendant. ‘Without prejudice’ preserves that right. The Commvault stipulation does not specify either term in the available public record. This ambiguity is commercially significant: if without prejudice, DataCloud retains the ability to refile, potentially in a different venue or after further claim mapping.
Prejudice unspecifiedDataCloud exits without a merits adjudication
DataCloud Technologies achieved no recorded judicial finding of infringement, validity, or damages. However, the swift resolution — before any responsive pleading or claim construction — suggests the action may have served a licensing leverage function. Whether DataCloud received any commercial consideration from Commvault is not discernible from the public docket.
No merits rulingCommvault avoids prolonged litigation but patents remain live
Commvault secured an end to this specific action without any adverse finding. However, none of the four asserted patents were invalidated or adjudicated as non-infringed. All four remain enforceable as issued patents. Commvault — and other companies in the data management and virtualization space — remain exposed to potential reassertion by DataCloud or any future assignee of these patents.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DataCloud Technologies, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US7209959B1, US6560613B1, US8156499B2, and US7398298B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Commvault Systems, Inc. | Company | Commvault Systems, Inc. — publicly traded data protection and management software providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Richard Charles Weinblatt | Attorney | Counsel for DataCloud Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stamatios Stamoulis | Attorney | Counsel for DataCloud Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC | Law Firm | Representing DataCloud Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer Ying | Attorney | Counsel for Commvault Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP | Law Firm | Representing Commvault Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Gregory B. Williams | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s ‘SO ORDERED’ endorsement of the Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Commvault Systems, Inc. reflects a purely procedural closure — no merits determination was made on infringement, validity, or damages for any of the four asserted patents. The filing of the stipulation by the defendant rather than jointly is noted, though this distinction does not by itself alter the legal effect. The absence of a prejudice designation in the available record means the enforceability implications for DataCloud’s patent portfolio remain open.
US7209959B1 — multi-domain website infrastructure and three further data management patents
US7209959B1 (application US09/542858) covers technology for supporting multiple domain names on shared website infrastructure — directly mapped to Commvault’s web-facing services. US6560613B1 (application US09/500212) addresses internet-based data storage, a foundational capability for backup vendors. US8156499B2 (application US12/331980) covers virtual machine management methods relevant to KVM hypervisor deployments. US7398298B2 (application US11/690803) addresses network-based data management and scheduling — the technical basis for the backup and restore scheduler claims.
Collectively, these four patents span the core technical stack of a modern data management platform: web infrastructure, cloud storage, virtualisation, and backup orchestration. Their application dates range from approximately 2000 to 2008, meaning the underlying inventions predate the widespread adoption of cloud-native architectures. This temporal positioning allows them to be mapped broadly against contemporary SaaS and hybrid-cloud data management products — a significant enforcement advantage for a patent licensing entity operating in this space.
Should your team run an FTO against US7209959B1 and the DataCloud portfolio?
Any company offering web-based backup scheduling, multi-tenant website infrastructure, KVM or Linux-based hypervisors, or cloud storage APIs should assess exposure to DataCloud’s four-patent portfolio. The breadth of the complaint against Commvault — covering products from domain management to restore scheduling — suggests these claims are being mapped across entire SaaS product suites, not narrow feature sets. R&D and product teams building or acquiring capabilities in these areas should conduct proactive FTO analysis before product launch or M&A.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US7209959B1, US6560613B1, US8156499B2, and US7398298B2 against your product architecture in minutes — surfacing design-around opportunities, prior art candidates, and third-party licences. Given the absence of a merits ruling in the Commvault case, these patents carry no judicial invalidity findings: Eureka’s prosecution history analysis can identify claim limitations that may narrow apparent scope.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7209959B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: data management, backup, and virtualisation IP in Delaware
Cases involving backup scheduling, multi-domain web infrastructure, and KVM virtualisation patents litigated in the District of Delaware, including other NPE-filed actions.
What this case signals for the data management and virtualization IP landscape
A four-patent complaint resolved in 66 days without merits adjudication raises pointed questions for data infrastructure vendors.
Multi-patent complaints resolved pre-answer often signal licensing strategy
When a plaintiff asserts four patents spanning distinct product categories and the case closes before any responsive pleading, it is consistent with a licensing-first enforcement model. Data management vendors targeted by similar entities should assess their exposure across the full claim scope — not just the headline product — before any litigation is filed.
Delaware remains the venue of choice for NPE actions against software infrastructure companies
DataCloud’s choice of the District of Delaware — combined with the use of Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, a firm with a substantial NPE plaintiff practice — is a pattern frequently observed in software patent enforcement. Companies with significant Delaware incorporations should maintain current FTO analyses on data management, backup scheduling, and hypervisor patents.
DataCloud v Commvault — key questions answered
DataCloud asserted four patents: US7209959B1 (multi-domain website infrastructure), US6560613B1 (internet-based data storage), US8156499B2 (virtual machine management), and US7398298B2 (network-based data management and scheduling). The products targeted included Commvault’s website infrastructure, configuration tools, restore scheduler, and KVM hypervisors.
The case was resolved via a Stipulation of Dismissal before any substantive motion practice or claim construction proceedings. A 66-day resolution is consistent with either a pre-litigation licensing agreement reached shortly after service of the complaint, or a strategic withdrawal by DataCloud. The public docket does not disclose any financial terms or the specific reason for the rapid closure.
The available public record does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. This is a material distinction: a ‘with prejudice’ dismissal bars DataCloud from reasserting the same patents against Commvault, while ‘without prejudice’ preserves that right. Anyone relying on this case for freedom-to-operate analysis should treat the prejudice status as unresolved on the public record.
Yes. No court issued any ruling on the validity or infringement of US7209959B1, US6560613B1, US8156499B2, or US7398298B2. All four patents remain issued and enforceable as a matter of public record. Other data management, backup, and virtualisation vendors remain potentially exposed to assertion of these patents by DataCloud or any future assignee.
The complaint targeted four Commvault product categories: (1) systems supporting multiple domain names on shared website infrastructure; (2) web-based user account creation and configuration including roles and authentication; (3) web-based scheduling of backups and restores; and (4) Linux-based KVM hypervisors for virtualisation. These map directly to the four asserted patents.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.