Data center boom creates new patent battleground around AI infrastructure

A growing cluster of patent disputes is targeting the cooling, thermal-management, and computing technologies underpinning the rapid expansion of AI data centers.

The rapid expansion of artificial intelligence infrastructure is creating a growing body of patent litigation around the technology needed to operate data centers.

Recent cases have targeted cooling and temperature-control systems used by data center operators, while a separate US International Trade Commission (USITC) investigation concerns GPU computing systems, data processing unit (DPU) technologies, and associated components.

The disputes point to an important development for patent practitioners: as investment in AI infrastructure accelerates, the IP value of the physical systems supporting AI computing is also increasing.

A recent Bloomberg Law analysis identified a growing number of patent and trade secret disputes involving data center infrastructure.

For The Patent Lawyer, the more significant story is the litigation developing around specific technologies and the companies operating the facilities in which those technologies are deployed.

Cooling technology comes under scrutiny

One of the clearest examples is a series of cases brought by Valtrus Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. involving data center cooling and environmental-control technology.

The plaintiffs have asserted patents originating from Hewlett-Packard Enterprise in cases against data center operators and technology companies. Their litigation includes disputes involving Lumen Technologies, EvoDC, Prime Data Centers, Cologix, H5 Data Centers, Iron Mountain Data Centers, CoreSite, Netrality Properties, and NTT Global Data Centers Americas.

The Lumen case illustrates the nature of the allegations. The plaintiffs assert three patents concerning data center cooling, temperature control, and atmospheric monitoring. The patents include US Patent No. 6,854,287, concerning cooling a room containing computer systems, and US Patent No. 6,868,682, concerning temperature control based on sensory data.

Valtrus and Key Patent Innovations allege that Lumen operates data center facilities in a manner that infringes the asserted patents.

Other cases similarly concern the way data center operators use cooling systems supplied by third parties. In the EvoDC litigation, for example, the plaintiffs allege infringement involving methods used to cool data centers with equipment supplied by third parties.

The Prime Data Centers case concerns the operator’s ORD01 data center campus in Illinois. The complaint alleges infringement involving responsive cooling systems that adjust cooling output according to thermal requirements. The two patents asserted in that case are expired, and the plaintiffs are seeking damages for past infringement.

That distinction is important. The litigation isn’t simply about whether a company manufactures a particular cooling product. Some of the allegations concern the way a data center operates its cooling systems.

Suppliers are also being drawn into the disputes

The litigation has also created potential exposure for suppliers whose equipment is allegedly being used by data center operators.

Vertiv Corporation filed a declaratory-judgment action against Valtrus and Key Patent Innovations in February, seeking to resolve allegations concerning its products and patents. The case remains active in the Eastern District of Texas.

The dispute illustrates how patent enforcement against data center operators can extend into the relationships between operators and their infrastructure suppliers.

Valtrus’ wider litigation campaign has now become sufficiently extensive to generate multidistrict litigation proceedings. In June, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation identified multiple related actions involving data center operators and suppliers in several federal districts and designated an MDL proceeding concerning the Valtrus patent litigation.

The development could provide an important test of how courts manage coordinated patent disputes involving the same underlying infrastructure technology across multiple data centers.

AI computing technology reaches the ITC

The litigation picture extends beyond cooling.

In June, the USITC instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1505 based on a complaint by Xockets Inc. concerning certain GPU computing systems, DPU technologies, associated components, and products containing them.

The complaint asserts five US patents: US Patent Nos. 10,223,297; 9,378,161; 10,212,092; 9,436,640; and 11,082,350. The named respondents include NVIDIA Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, Amazon.com, Amazon Web Services, and Annapurna Labs.

Xockets is seeking a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders.

The ITC proceeding is significant because the potential remedy extends beyond monetary damages. An exclusion order can restrict the importation of covered products into the US, creating additional commercial pressure for companies whose hardware forms part of AI computing infrastructure.

The emerging data center litigation map

Taken together, the cases highlight several areas in which IP disputes could become increasingly important as AI infrastructure expands:

• Cooling and thermal management, including systems for controlling temperature and cooling output;
• Sensors and environmental monitoring, including technology that collects data used to control data center conditions;
• Computing and networking infrastructure, including GPUs, DPUs, and associated components;
• Control systems, where software and hardware work together to manage infrastructure; and
• Supply-chain relationships, where disputes involving a supplier’s technology can affect the data center operators using it.

The cases also demonstrate that different parts of the data center ecosystem can become involved in the same patent dispute.

A patent owner may target the operator of a facility based on how it uses particular technology, while the equipment supplier may separately seek to establish that its products do not infringe or become involved in the litigation through indemnification arrangements.

What it means for patent strategy

For data center operators, the disputes underline the importance of understanding the IP position of infrastructure before deploying it at scale.

Cooling and power-management equipment can represent substantial capital investment, making replacement difficult if a court finds infringement or an import remedy affects a critical supplier.

Technology suppliers face a corresponding need to understand how their products are being deployed by customers and what contractual protections apply if those customers are accused of infringement.

The same considerations apply to companies developing new AI infrastructure. Patent portfolios covering thermal management, sensors, control systems, and computing architectures may become increasingly valuable as data center investment grows.

The emerging litigation does not yet establish that AI data centers are facing a single, industry-wide patent crisis. It does, however, show that the infrastructure supporting AI computing is already becoming the subject of significant patent disputes across multiple courts and, in the Xockets case, the USITC.

As AI data center capacity continues to expand, the IP battles may increasingly concern not only the models and applications running on those facilities, but also the technology that keeps the underlying computing infrastructure operating.

← Back to News