Focus Global Solutions LLC v. Dell Technologies Inc.

On August 3, 2022, Focus Global Solutions LLC (“Plaintiff”), represented by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Dell Technologies Inc. (“Defendant”), seeking damages for alleged infringement of the U.S. patent owned by the plaintiff. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, with Judge Frank Montalvo presiding.

Plaintiff filed the complaint for the alleged infringement of U.S. patent No. 6,920,494 entitled “Storage area network methods and apparatus with virtual SAN recognition” (the “Patent-in-Suit”) owned by the plaintiff.

In the complaint, the plaintiff claimed, “Plaintiff is the assignee of all right, title and interest in United States Patent No. 6,920,494 (the ‘Patent-in-Suit’); including all rights to enforce and prosecute actions for infringement and to collect damages for all relevant times against infringers of the Patent-in-Suit.”

Plaintiff further claimed, “The ’494 Patent is entitled ‘Storage area network methods and apparatus with virtual SAN recognition,’ and issued 2005-07-19. The application leading to the ’494 Patent was filed on 2001-10-05.”

Plaintiff then alleged, “Defendant directly infringed one or more claims of the ’494 Patent in at least this District by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing, without limitation literally or by the doctrine of equivalents. “

Plaintiff then alleged, “Numerous other devices that infringed the claims of the ’494 Patent have been made, used, sold, imported, and offered for sale by Defendant and/or its customers and Defendant also directly infringed, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the Exemplary ’494 Patent Claims, by having its employees internally test and use these Exemplary Products.”

Plaintiff presented one claim for relief for alleged infringement of the patent-in-suit.

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff requested an award of appropriate damages, costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.