Concurrent Ventures, LLC, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices Inc., et al.

Background

Concurrent Ventures, LLC, and Xtream Edge, Inc., filed a patent-infringement action against Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD), and Pensando Systems, Inc. The case was filed in the Western District of Texas on March 29, 2024, transferred to the Northern District of California on November 3, 2025, and proceeded on plaintiffs’ first amended complaint.

The amended complaint alleged infringement of five patents that broadly concern increasing the efficiency of communications between computer processing units and network components. Plaintiffs alleged that the patents involve technology known as a Stream Processing Unit, while the accused products include Data Processing Units and related technology. Plaintiffs also alleged indirect infringement—inducing or contributing to another party’s infringement—and willful infringement.

Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss argued that two patents were ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged defendants’ knowledge for the indirect- and willful-infringement claims. The court applied the standard for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint contains enough factual content to state a plausible claim.

Patent Eligibility

The court analyzed the ’634 patent and the ’767 patent under the two-step framework for determining whether a patent claims eligible subject matter.

For the ’634 patent, the court described the claimed technology as using historical information about network bandwidth, matching a new connection to a past connection based on geographic area, and using the past connection’s bandwidth information to set the starting bandwidth for the new connection. The court found that the representative claim was directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality: increasing the efficiency of data transmission between network endpoints through a separate “tuner server” that collects and analyzes historical connection data and helps allocate starting bandwidth.

The court distinguished cases involving generic location-based data matching and concluded that the geographic information was secondary to the patent’s central innovation. Because the ’634 patent was eligible at the first step, the court did not proceed to the second step, which asks whether additional claim elements transform an otherwise abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.

For the ’767 patent, the court described a system for allowing a host computer to communicate with storage devices using different storage-interface protocols through an abstraction protocol and a specific arrangement of master and edge controllers. The court rejected defendants’ characterization of the patent as merely claiming translation of commands from one format to another. It found that the patent claimed a specific improvement in computer functionality intended to improve the efficiency and performance of communication between host computers and storage devices. The court therefore found the ’767 patent eligible at the first step and did not reach the second step.

Indirect and Willful Infringement

The court explained that indirect- and willful-infringement claims require allegations supporting a plausible inference that defendants knew about the asserted patents and knew, or were deliberately unaware, that their conduct infringed them.

The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that filing the complaint alone generally supplied the necessary knowledge. It held that plaintiffs had to allege pre-suit knowledge. Plaintiffs alleged that AMD had detailed technical discussions with HellaStorm, Concurrent Ventures’ commercialization partner, in June 2014; that HellaStorm later discussed the technology with Dell participants, including Robert Hormuth; and that Hormuth later became an AMD vice president. Plaintiffs further alleged, on information and belief, that Hormuth’s knowledge contributed to AMD’s acquisition of Pensando and that he informed Pensando about the technology.

The court also considered plaintiffs’ allegations about the small number of participants in the relevant market, plaintiffs’ pioneering role and direct competition, AMD’s investment in the market, and similarities between defendants’ accused products and plaintiffs’ technology and marketing. Taken together, the court found these allegations sufficient at the pleading stage to support a plausible inference of defendants’ knowledge and willfulness.

The court emphasized that the case was close and that the complaint lacked facts showing specifically that defendants knew plaintiffs had applied for or received the asserted patents. The court stated that more would be required to establish entitlement to enhanced damages for willful infringement, but it concluded that the allegations were sufficient to proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Disposition

The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 156, in full. The court also denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike or file a sur-reply concerning defendants’ argument that pre-suit knowledge was required.