Xockets Files Antitrust, Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against NVIDIA and Microsoft

[Nomad76]

Xockets, inventor of Data Processing Unit (DPU) technology has launched a legal battle against NVIDIA and Microsoft. The lawsuit, filed in Texas, accuses the companies of forming an illegal cartel to avoid fair compensation for its patented DPU technology. Xockets claims that the Data Processing Unit technology its co-founder Parin Dalal invented in 2012 is fundamental to NVIDIA's GPU-enabled AI systems and Microsoft's AI platforms. The lawsuit alleges that NVIDIA has infringed on Xockets' patents since its 2020 acquisition of Mellanox, a deal NVIDIA's CEO Jensen Huang once called a "homerun." Xockets is seeking injunctions to halt the release of NVIDIA's new Blackwell GPU-enabled AI systems and Microsoft's use of these systems in their generative AI platforms.

The case touches on the bigger issues of intellectual property rights and the monopoly in the tech sector. Robert Cote, a Xockets board member, describes the suit as a fight against "Big Tech's predatory infringement playbook," accusing NVIDIA and Microsoft of making moves to devalue smaller companies' innovations. The AI revolution continues to transform the tech world, and this legal dispute may have a profound effect on the way intellectual property is valued and protected in the industry, possibly introducing new precedents for the relationship between tech giants and smaller innovators.

"NVIDIA and Microsoft are abusing their dominance and market power in AI in an attempt to pay little or nothing for the innovations of others that are used in their products. They are engaging in illegal activities that are part of Big Tech's predatory infringement playbook, a strategy designed to devalue the IP of other innovators. Xockets invented advanced DPU technology, including new computing and switching plane architectures for a new class of cloud processors, that have enabled the AI revolution and are critical to both NVIDIA's and Microsoft's continued Xockets.com success," said Xockets board member Robert Cote, an IP investor and expert on IP rights.

"When Xockets reached out to both NVIDIA and Microsoft about licensing or acquiring its patents, they refused to engage even though they had every incentive to seize at an opportunity to gain the first and potentially exclusive legal access to this groundbreaking technology—technology that both companies have publicly admitted is critical to their current business. Instead, it was RPX who reached out to Xockets to do a licensing deal on behalf of what it euphemistically refers to as its "members," which it has indicated included NVIDIA and Microsoft", quoted from Xockets Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

NVIDIA declined to comment, Microsoft and RPX, which is also a defendant, did not respond to requests for comment. The case is Xockets Inc v Nvidia, Microsoft and RPX, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, No. 6:24-cv-00453-ADA.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[AnarchoPrimitiv]

I hope their lawsuit is successful....and I'll be the first to admit that it's 100% because I want to see Nvidia taken down a peg.

 

[evernessince]

Both Nvidia and Microsoft have done this in the past so it wouldn't surprise me if they were doing it again. Just ask Arris from Cybernetics / Hardwarebusters how Nvidia asked him for help and then yoinked his design for their PCAT tool.

 

[xorbe]

Xockets, inventor of Data Processing Unit (DPU) technology

So what's their product portfolio? Or is it just another legal IP company looking to cash in. Their web site just iterates the same claims, and no web search presence, not even a Wikipedia stub.

 

[jimmyxxx]

I assume the patent infringement is about US9288101 and the related patents.
While I know that NVIDIA and Microsoft corporate practices are short of "depredatory" when it comes to IP, specially IP of smaller companies, I don't think Xockets has a solid case here.
Feel free to read the patents and make your own conclusions.

 

[Nomad76]

I assume the patent infringement is about US9288101 and the related patents.
While I know that NVIDIA and Microsoft corporate practices are short of "depredatory" when it comes to IP, specially IP of smaller companies, I don't think Xockets has a solid case here.
Feel free to read the patents and make your own conclusions.

Xockets’ issued patents include: (i) Xockets’ DPU Computing Architecture Patents (also known as the “New Cloud - 7 - Processor Patents”), including U.S. Patent Nos. 11,080,209 (“the ’209 Patent” – DPU Computing Architecture, Security), U.S. Patent No. 10,649,924 (“the ’924 Patent” – DPU Network Overlay, Security), and U.S. Patent No. 11,082,350 (“the ’350 Patent” – DPU Stream Processing); and (ii) Xockets’ DPU Switching Architecture Patents (also known as the “New Cloud Fabric Patents”), including U.S. Patent No. 10,223,297 (“the ’297 Patent” – DPU Cloud Network Fabric), U.S. Patent No. 9,378,161 (“the ’161 Patent” – DPU Cloud Network Fabric), U.S. Patent No. 10,212,092 (“the ’092 Patent” – DPU In-Network Computing), and U.S. Patent No. 9,436,640 (“the ’640 Patent” – DPU In-Network Computing). These patents, including the ’209 Patent, ’924 Patent, ’350 Patent, ’297 Patent, ’161 Patent, ’092 Patent, and ’640 Patent

https://www.xockets.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/XOCKETS-ANTITRUST-AND-PATENT-COMPLAINT.pdf

 

[evernessince]

I assume the patent infringement is about US9288101 and the related patents.

Essentially all of their patents are related to DPUs: https://patents.justia.com/assignee/xockets-inc

Patent infringement is only one element of the case, there are price fixing / coercion elements as well:

"The illegal cartel of the two giants was facilitated by an entity called RPX, the suit says in a 492-page complaint. Xockets argues RPX was formed to allow Nvidia, Microsoft and others to jointly boycott innovations such as those by Xockets to drive prices lower than if each company negotiated separately. Nvidia uses Xockets DPU intellectual property in its GPUs used in data center servers, while Microsoft relies on the IP for GPU-enabled AI platforms, Xocket said in the lawsuit. The DPU IP is critical to Microsoft and Nvidia market capitalization, Xockets added."

Xockets hits Nvidia, Microsoft in patent lawsuit, creating a cartel

Updated with hearing date* | The Xockets suit was filed in federal court in Texas and seeks an injunction on Blackwell chips

www.fierceelectronics.com

While I know that NVIDIA and Microsoft corporate practices are short of "depredatory" when it comes to IP, specially IP of smaller companies, I don't think Xockets has a solid case here.
Feel free to read the patents and make your own conclusions.

Lawsuits like this can be very complicated and it would take several days to conduct preliminary research to even be able to come to a somewhat informed conclusion. I very much doubt you've conducted anywhere near a complete investigation in the few minutes since the article released and the lack of an explanation provided by you only further makes me believe you are saying this while at best looking at a few surface details provided.

So what's their product portfolio? Or is it just another legal IP company looking to cash in. Their web site just iterates the same claims, and no web search presence, not even a Wikipedia stub.

They license their tech to companies like Nvidia and by extension they are in a lot of products. Their patent portfolio is only related to DPUs and their CEO has the correct chops for the industry. At first glance it doesn't appear to a patent troll.

 

[Nomad76]

Their patent portfolio is only related to DPUs and their CEO has the correct chops for the industry. At first glance it doesn't appear to a patent troll.

So it seems, we need to wait

 

[Dr. Dro]

"Data Processing Unit" is such a broad term it could apply to anything from a pocket calculator to a supercomputer. What nonsense.

 

[R-T-B]

"Data Processing Unit" is such a broad term it could apply to anything from a pocket calculator to a supercomputer. What nonsense.

Good thing the patent actually defines what it is they are talking about, because I agree the wording is vague as heck.

 

[Daven]

I’m sure Nvidia sees stealing third party IP as a ‘homerun’ as well.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Good thing the patent actually defines what it is they are talking about, because I agree the wording is vague as heck.

The article states "DPUs are meant to handle data traveling between servers for networking, storage, and security and reduce and organize these data streams.", which is still an incredibly abstract definition, since arguably these tasks are what any computing device of any nature is designed to do.

It'll be very interesting to see any of it hold up in court, considered all my law professors can't seem to operate the classroom's computer to show their PowerPoint presentations without help

 

[close]

The article states "DPUs are meant to handle data traveling between servers for networking, storage, and security and reduce and organize these data streams.", which is still an incredibly abstract definition, since arguably these tasks are what any computing device of any nature is designed to do.

It'll be very interesting to see any of it hold up in court, considered all my law professors can't seem to operate the classroom's computer to show their PowerPoint presentations without help

First you complain that the acronym of a technology doesn't immediately make it clear to you in fine detail what it does. Then you complain that the article gave a one liner definition and didn't quote the entire patent text or wiki page, which anyone can google. It's a general name, like CPU or NPU. Do you expect a definition of "CPU" every time it's used or think anything can be a CPU (because it can)?

This is a DPU, a smart network card. Nvidia's BlueField, NVLink Switch, or ConnectX are most likely the DPUs Xsockets is claiming are using their tech.

You keep finding ways of flaunting your ignorance and pushing the bottom of the barrel lower in almost every thread .

 

[R-T-B]

It'll be very interesting to see any of it hold up in court, considered all my law professors can't seem to operate the classroom's computer to show their PowerPoint presentations without help

Frankly if you understand the legal system, my brain wouldn't have room for trivial shit like that either.

 

[Dr. Dro]

You keep finding ways of flaunting your ignorance and pushing the bottom of the barrel lower in almost every thread .

Hilarious! If I'm sooo wrong all the time and "constantly flaunting my ignorance", then not only feel free - I encourage you to please correct me! I expect that to be made a habit of. Forums are an exchange of knowledge. I have read the linked material, I know what the "DPU" is. Now try to explain that to someone who will likely look up the definition of "computer" and "data processing" on a dictionary to pass their judgment. When you have a case, you better have a very clear, concise and direct explanation of what your claims and demands.

So far, all the language I have read on the press release and media is incredibly abstract. Xockets' own press release contains no technical terms whatsoever, merely stating that "their products offload and organize data in the cloud" - people like us know what Bluefield is, literally an HPC-scale network adapter with a distinct level of compute capability to organize and prioritize the throughput.

Now make me the case - what differentiates this "DPU" from an enterprise-grade NIC that also shares the main characteristics of not relying on the host processor for interrupts and data processing, or even your common household router with QoS capabilities other than the scale of operation? You can argue that a router also has a dedicated operating system and the capability to offload and organize data to a remote, err, "AI cloud" server all the same.

Frankly if you understand the legal system, my brain wouldn't have room for trivial shit like that either.

Indeed, and that was my point altogether. I hope we get updates on this particular case down the road.

 

[close]

Hilarious! If I'm sooo wrong all the time and "constantly flaunting my ignorance", then not only feel free - I encourage you to please correct me! I expect that to be made a habit of. Forums are an exchange of knowledge. I have read the linked material, I know what the "DPU" is. Now try to explain that to someone who will likely look up the definition of "computer" and "data processing" on a dictionary to pass their judgment. When you have a case, you better have a very clear, concise and direct explanation of what your claims and demands.

So far, all the language I have read on the press release and media is incredibly abstract. Xockets' own press release contains no technical terms whatsoever, merely stating that "their products offload and organize data in the cloud" - people like us know what Bluefield is, literally an HPC-scale network adapter with a distinct level of compute capability to organize and prioritize the throughput.

Now make me the case - what differentiates this "DPU" from an enterprise-grade NIC that also shares the main characteristics of not relying on the host processor for interrupts and data processing, or even your common household router with QoS capabilities other than the scale of operation? You can argue that a router also has a dedicated operating system and the capability to offload and organize data to a remote, err, "AI cloud" server all the same.



Indeed, and that was my point altogether. I hope we get updates on this particular case down the road.

Of course all the language on the press release is vague. It's a press release about the legal conflict, not a deep dive in the tech. The complaint is almost 500 pages. The patents are equally "stuffy". Such articles and news about a court battle basically never do a tech dive.

You want to know what a DPU is in general? The Wiki page I gave you gives you a starting point. You want to know what particular DPU related tech is in question now? The patents referenced will describe in detail. You want to know what products are most likely affected? I gave you the names above.

The "explain like I'm Dr. Dro" version of this is that a DPU can do the things that a NIC still needs the system CPU for, having their own full blown CPU, GPU, memory, can run their own OS, and more (do these acronyms need explaining?). Some of Nvidia's DPUs come with 16 ARM cores, 64GB of RAM, and an A100 GPU. Microsoft's (Fungible's) DPUs are similar. This field is probably as patent encumbered as it can get so a lot of networking products (like NVLink Switch which connects multiple NVLinks to directly network GPUs, or the "run of the mill" ConnectX) could infringe on something.

You can't be bothered to do any reading by yourself but spend an awful lot of time complaining that others don't spoon feed you the details. Hell of a calling card.

 

[Dr. Dro]

The "explain like I'm Dr. Dro"

You can't be bothered to do any reading by yourself but spend an awful lot of time complaining that others don't spoon feed you the details. Hell of a calling card.

Spoiler: original post

Wow, I've earned my very own hater. I feel accomplished beyond measure

But since you seem to have had access to the actual complaint and seemingly know what they are complaining about (because right now I'm thinking it's something similar in nature to Sisvel's AV1 patent trolling), mind linking me here? Thanks.

Never mind, looks like Nomad did a few posts ago. I am reading that now.

OK, let's do a full reset here, @close. Looks like I wasn't that far off. It really is about data management in a massive scale, serving much of the same purpose as a device that stays at the edge of the network, except that it does the bulk of the processing of networking, storage and security services at that layer.

I've read the portion of the document where it's making its case - primarily, the complaints are about how the products contested basically operate. Xockets' system seems to be nothing short of rudimentary in comparison to Nvidia's system, but picturing an OSI model in mind, I have major difficulties understanding how else exactly are you supposed to develop products of this nature. To me, it feels like patenting air or water. Xockets seems to basically claim that they have created modular computing (page 43). It's even something they state on the document itself (pages 45, 46). They go on about "XIMMs", for example, but I really, really have a difficult time seeing how else do you attain high data throughput without live memory.

This definition (page 45) seems so extremely broad that even the tiny Core 2 Quad box I have here managing my intranet largely fits this description. It contains several network adapter interfaces acting as switches, a main processor, a computation module coupled to the main processor by a bus, a second switch that forms a plane for the ingress and egress of network packets, inserted onto a physical connector for the first module (aka my motherboard), etc.

Oh well, leave it to the generously well paid people who actually graduated to figure this out. This is far, far, faaar from my area of expertise, but if you have more feedback than "Dr. Dro sucks, he is dumb", I welcome and highly appreciate it