Streamscale v. Cloudera: $240M Jury Win on Erasure Coding Patents
Streamscale, Inc. secured a $240 million jury verdict against Cloudera, Inc. in the Western District of Texas after a 974-day litigation over three accelerated erasure coding patents. The jury found direct infringement of all asserted claims and rejected every invalidity defence Cloudera raised.
A $240M Erasure Coding Verdict That Reshapes Big-Data IP Risk
On March 2, 2021, Streamscale, Inc. filed suit in the Western District of Texas against Cloudera, Inc. and a constellation of enterprise defendants — including Experian entities, ADP, Intel Corporation, and Wargaming (Austin) — asserting infringement of up to six patents covering accelerated erasure coding (EC) technology. The core allegations centred on Cloudera's CDH platform and the Intel ISA-L library used to implement high-performance erasure coding across data storage and analytics pipelines.
Jury selection commenced October 5, 2023, and eight days later the jury returned a unanimous verdict finding Cloudera directly infringed Claims 34 and 35 of US8683296, Claim 1 of US9385759, and Claim 12 of US10291259, while rejecting all invalidity challenges. The court entered final judgment for Streamscale in the amount of $240,000,000. Streamscale is the prevailing party for costs, and the judgment preserves its right to move for pre- and post-judgment interest.
The case resolved through a full jury trial rather than settlement, a relatively rare outcome in WDTX patent litigation. Streamscale voluntarily withdrew claims from three additional patents (US9160374, US10003358, US10666296) and other asserted claims before trial — a classic narrowing strategy to sharpen jury focus. The specific disposition of claims against the non-Cloudera defendants is not detailed in the available final judgment record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff in 974 days
974 days from filing to final judgment — a full trial on the merits in Judge Albright's court
US8683296, US9385759 & US10291259 — Accelerated Erasure Coding Systems
Any company shipping or deploying software or hardware that implements accelerated erasure coding — particularly using Intel ISA-L, Hadoop HDFS EC, or comparable acceleration libraries — should treat this case as a trigger for an FTO review. The verdict confirms that the Streamscale patent family covers real commercial implementations at scale. Cloud storage vendors, big-data platform providers, CDN operators, and enterprise storage appliance manufacturers are all within the risk perimeter.
Official order — verbatim text
The jury's unanimous verdict — finding direct infringement on all three asserted patents and rejecting every invalidity challenge — represents a complete merits determination in Streamscale's favour. The final judgment entered under Rules 54 and 58 crystallises the $240M award as an immediately appealable judgment, starting the clock for JMOL motions, new-trial motions, and a potential Federal Circuit appeal by Cloudera. The court also preserved Streamscale's right to seek interest on the award.
Jury verdict for Streamscale: what the $240M judgment means for both parties
Full jury trial ending in a plaintiff verdict and final judgment
The case proceeded to a full jury trial — not a dispositive motion or settlement — culminating in a unanimous verdict on October 13, 2023. The court subsequently entered final judgment under Federal Rules 54 and 58, resolving all pending issues. The judgment is immediately appealable and starts the clock for post-trial motions, including JMOL and motions for enhanced damages or interest.
Judgment on the meritsStreamscale secures $240M and prevailing-party cost recovery
All three asserted patents survived invalidity challenges at trial. The $240M damages award compensates Streamscale for Cloudera's direct infringement of the specific claims at issue. As prevailing party, Streamscale may also recover taxable costs and has the right to move for pre- and post-judgment interest, potentially increasing the total recovery. Three additional patents were dismissed without prejudice, preserving future enforcement options.
$240M damages + cost recoveryCloudera faces $240M judgment and potential post-trial and appellate costs
The jury rejected every invalidity defence Cloudera advanced, leaving the company with a $240M damages judgment and exposure to post-judgment interest. Cloudera retains the right to file post-trial motions (e.g., JMOL, new trial) and to appeal to the Federal Circuit — routes that are now standard in large WDTX verdicts. Until any post-trial relief is granted, the judgment stands as entered.
Full damages judgment enteredErasure coding IP risk now validated at the $240M level
This verdict signals that accelerated erasure coding — a foundational technology in distributed storage, cloud infrastructure, and big-data platforms — carries significant, proven patent risk. Any vendor deploying Intel ISA-L or comparable EC acceleration libraries should treat Streamscale's portfolio as active enforcement risk. The damages quantum also establishes a high-water reference point for future licensing negotiations in this technology space.
High-value EC patent risk confirmedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Streamscale, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Cloudera, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Csidentity, Corp. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Experian Health, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Experian Marketing Solutions, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | ADP, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Experian Information Solutions, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Wargaming (Austin), Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Intel Corporation | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Austin Teng | Attorney | Counsel for Streamscale, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David W Higer | Attorney | Counsel for Streamscale, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | H. Grant Tucker | Attorney | Counsel for Streamscale, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jamie H. McDole | Attorney | Counsel for Streamscale, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason G. Sheasby | Attorney | Counsel for Streamscale, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lisa Glasser | Attorney | Counsel for Streamscale, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Massimo Ciccarelli | Attorney | Counsel for Streamscale, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew K. Joeckel | Attorney | Counsel for Streamscale, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael D. Karson | Attorney | Counsel for Streamscale, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nadia Elena Haghighatian | Attorney | Counsel for Streamscale, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Phillip B. Philbin | Attorney | Counsel for Streamscale, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sarah Shawn Williamson | Attorney | Counsel for Streamscale, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen M. Payne | Attorney | Counsel for Streamscale, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ciccarelli Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing Streamscale, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Irell & Manella LLP | Law Firm | Representing Streamscale, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kirkland & Ellis LLP | Law Firm | Representing Streamscale, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Winstead PC | Law Firm | Representing Streamscale, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Audrey Lo | Attorney | Counsel for Cloudera, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin L. Bernell | Attorney | Counsel for Cloudera, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brock S. Weber | Attorney | Counsel for Cloudera, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher Kao | Attorney | Counsel for Cloudera, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher Lee Drymalla | Attorney | Counsel for Cloudera, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Darryl Adams | Attorney | Counsel for Cloudera, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeffrey E. Faucette | Attorney | Counsel for Cloudera, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John J. Steger | Attorney | Counsel for Cloudera, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven P. Tepera | Attorney | Counsel for Cloudera, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Surui Ou | Attorney | Counsel for Cloudera, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cloudera, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Skaggs Faucette LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cloudera, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Cloudera, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the accelerated erasure coding patent space
Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from the Streamscale v. Cloudera case — covering portfolio activity, technology filing trends, and white-space opportunities in erasure coding and distributed storage.
Streamscale's EC patent family: continuation risk beyond the verdict
Streamscale's asserted portfolio spans at least six patent numbers across multiple application chains (US8683296, US9160374, US9385759, US10003358, US10291259, US10666296). Three were withdrawn without prejudice at trial, signalling potential continuation activity or future assertion campaigns. Monitoring Streamscale's prosecution docket for new divisionals or continuations is a high-priority intelligence action for EC platform vendors.
Active portfolio watchAccelerated EC filing trends: where the innovation frontier is moving
The asserted patents cover EC acceleration using SIMD-capable processor registers and parallel lookup multipliers — a design paradigm that predates NVMe and CXL. Emerging work in CXL-attached memory pooling, computational storage, and GPU-accelerated EC (e.g., for AI training checkpoints) may fall outside existing claim scope, representing potential white space. Filing trends in these adjacent areas are worth tracking for design-around and innovation opportunity.
EC acceleration white spaceCloudera's patent position in distributed data platforms post-verdict
Cloudera operates in a heavily patented space covering Hadoop ecosystem components, distributed query engines, and data security. The $240M verdict — and the invalidity defences that failed — suggests Cloudera's EC implementation relied on third-party libraries (ISA-L) rather than proprietary IP. Analysing Cloudera's own patent filings in storage and data redundancy may reveal defensive gaps or cross-licensing leverage relevant to post-trial negotiations.
Cloudera defensive IP gapNext-generation EC: untapped claim space in AI and object storage
The Streamscale patents focus on matrix-based EC with lookup multipliers on CPU register widths available circa 2012–2018. Post-verdict, adjacent claim space may exist around: EC for AI model sharding and checkpoint recovery; erasure coding optimised for object-storage APIs (S3-compatible); and hardware-accelerated EC in DPUs and SmartNICs. These areas may represent patentable innovation not covered by the asserted claims.
AI & object-storage EC gapSimilar erasure coding and storage-tech patent cases in WDTX
Explore patent infringement cases involving erasure coding, distributed storage, and data-redundancy technology litigated in the Western District of Texas before Judge Albright.
What this $240M verdict signals for the erasure coding IP landscape
The Streamscale verdict is one of the largest patent awards in WDTX history for a storage-tech patent and sets a precedent for EC licensing disputes.
Erasure coding patents now carry nine-figure litigation exposure
The $240M verdict — entered on three patents covering accelerated EC technology — demonstrates that infrastructure-layer patents in distributed storage are worth aggressively monetising and defending. Companies relying on Apache Hadoop, CDH-derived platforms, or ISA-L-based encoding should audit their EC implementations against Streamscale's active portfolio.
Withdrawn claims remain live: three patents were dismissed without prejudice
US9160374, US10003358, and US10666296 were voluntarily withdrawn without prejudice before trial, meaning Streamscale retains enforcement rights. Defendants in adjacent technology sectors — cloud storage, CDN, and hyperscale infrastructure — should monitor whether Streamscale pursues follow-on actions under these patents.
Streamscale v Cloudera — key questions answered
The jury returned a unanimous verdict on October 13, 2023 finding Cloudera directly infringed Claims 34 and 35 of US8683296, Claim 1 of US9385759, and Claim 12 of US10291259. The jury also found that none of the asserted claims were proven invalid and awarded $240,000,000 in damages to Streamscale. The court subsequently entered final judgment for Streamscale.
Streamscale initially asserted six patents. Three were adjudicated at trial: US8683296, US9385759, and US10291259, all covering accelerated erasure coding systems using data matrices, check matrices, encoding matrices, and parallel lookup multipliers. Three further patents (US9160374, US10003358, US10666296) were voluntarily withdrawn without prejudice before trial to narrow the case.
The complaint accused multiple defendants of infringing Streamscale's erasure coding patents through deployment or use of Intel's Intelligent Storage Acceleration Library (ISA-L) and platforms such as Cloudera CDH, Experian's Analytical Sandbox and Velcro, ADP systems, and Wargaming's Player Relationship Management Platform. The available final judgment addresses only Cloudera's liability; the disposition of claims against the other defendants is not detailed in the public record.
The $240M award was entered as compensatory damages for Cloudera's direct infringement of the asserted claims. The final judgment expressly preserves Streamscale's right to file motions for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, which could increase the total recovery. Streamscale was also designated the prevailing party entitled to recover taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
The final judgment starts the clock for Cloudera to file post-trial motions, including a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or a motion for a new trial. If those are denied, Cloudera may appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Until post-trial relief is granted, the $240M judgment remains in force. The specific terms of any post-trial proceedings are not disclosed in the available record.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.