Digital Cache, LLC v. Western Digital Corporation

On April 7, 2021, Digital Cache, LLC (“Plaintiff”) represented by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law, LLC filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Western Digital Corporation (“Defendant”), seeking an accounting of damages along with damages for alleged patent infringement. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas with Judge Alan D. Albright presiding.

Plaintiff alleged that “Plaintiff is the assignee of all right, title and interest in United States Patent Nos. 6,851,015; 6,956,738; 7,312,982; and 7,440,274 (the “Patents-in-Suit”); including all rights to enforce and prosecute actions for infringement and to collect damages for all relevant times against infringers of the Patents-in-Suit.” The ’015 Patent is entitled “Method of overwriting data in non-volatile memory and a control apparatus used for the method,” and issued 2005-02-01. The ’738 Patent is entitled “Digital storage element mechanical shock isolation arrangement in a host device and method,” and issued 2005-10-18. The ’982 Patent is entitled “Digital storage element mechanical shock isolation arrangement in a host device and method,” and issued 2007-12-25. The ’274 Patent is entitled “Digital storage element mechanical shock isolation arrangement in a host device and method,” and issued 2008-10-21.

In its complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that “Defendant directly infringed one or more claims of the Patent-in-suit in at least this District by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing, without limitation, at least the Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count below (among the “Exemplary Defendant Products”) that infringed at least the exemplary claims of the Patent also identified in the charts incorporated into this Count below literally or by the doctrine of equivalents.” “On information and belief, numerous other devices that infringed the claims of the Patents-in-suit have been made, used, sold, imported, and offered for sale by Defendant and/or its customers.”

The Plaintiff has further alleged that the “Defendant also directly infringed, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the Patent Claims, by having its employees internally test and use these Exemplary Products.” 

There are four claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff. The first claim is for the alleged infringement of Patent ‘015. The second claim is for the alleged infringement of Patent ‘738. The third claim is for the alleged infringement of ‘982. The fourth claim is for the alleged infringement of ‘274.

In its prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the Court to pass a judgment that Patents-in suit are valid & enforceable, and that the Defendant allegedly infringed directly one or more claims of the said Patents. The Plaintiff has further requested the Court to pass a judgment that awards Plaintiff all appropriate damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for Defendant's past alleged infringement, at least with respect to the ’015; ’738; ’982; and ’274 Patents. And, if necessary, to adequately compensate Plaintiff for Defendant's alleged infringement, accounting that this this case be declared exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and that Plaintiff be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses and any other equitable relief as the Court may deem fit. 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.