DCT

1:23-cv-00904

AttestWave LLC v. Globalplatform Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00904, D. Colo., 04/12/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Colorado because Defendant maintains an established place of business in Fort Collins, Colorado.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products and services for managing secure applications infringe a patent related to the management of trusted data flows in computer networks.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue relates to methods for verifying that software generating data packets on a network is authentic and behaving correctly, a field critical for network security and preventing denial-of-service attacks.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff is the assignee of the patent-in-suit. No other procedural events, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent, are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-03-16 '704 Patent Priority Date (Provisional Application)
2002-08-14 '704 Patent Application Filing Date
2007-12-04 '704 Patent Issue Date
2023-04-12 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,305,704 - "Management of trusted flow system"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,305,704, "Management of trusted flow system," issued December 4, 2007 (’704 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a fundamental problem in computer networks where, unlike traditional telephone networks, a user has access to the software that regulates their own data transmissions. This allows a malicious or malfunctioning user to deviate from agreed-upon rules, potentially over-utilizing resources or launching attacks, while existing security tools like firewalls are merely "reactive" ('704 Patent, col. 2:33-56).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to proactively validate the integrity of software on an end-station. It describes two "interlocked" components: a "Trusted Flow Generator" (TFG) on the end-station and a "Trusted Tag Checker" (TTC) at a network interface. The TFG, integrated with the program sending data, embeds an unpredictable "security tag" into data packets. The TTC, which shares the logic for creating these tags, checks the validity of the tag on each packet. A valid tag indicates the end-station is running the correct, unmodified software, and the packet is trusted and can be passed, while an invalid tag suggests tampering, allowing the packet to be dropped ('704 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-22; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a method to ensure that end-stations adhere to defined transmission rules, allowing networks to differentiate service levels and better protect against misbehavior originating from the end-user’s own machine ('704 Patent, col. 5:1-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "exemplary claims" identified in a non-provided Exhibit 2 and therefore does not specify which claims are asserted in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶11).
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent, reserving the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products or services by name. It refers generally to "Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" and "Exemplary Defendant Products," which are contained in the non-provided Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality. It makes only general allegations that Defendant's products "perform infringing methods or processes" and that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users" to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶3, 14).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain an element-by-element infringement analysis, instead incorporating by reference "the claim charts of Exhibit 2," which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶17). The narrative infringement theory alleges that "the Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the ’704 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '704 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16).

Without the asserted claims or any description of the accused products, a detailed analysis of potential points of contention is not possible based on the complaint alone. Any such analysis would depend on the specific architecture of the accused products and which claims are ultimately asserted.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not identify any asserted claims, which precludes an analysis of key terms that may be central to claim construction.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells its products to customers and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users to operate the products in a manner that allegedly infringes the ’704 Patent (Compl. ¶14-15). The pleading asserts this inducement has occurred "knowingly, and intentionally," at least since the service of the complaint (Compl. ¶15).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that service of the complaint and its attached (but un-filed) claim charts provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges that "Despite such actual knowledge, Defendant continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" the accused products, forming a basis for post-filing willful infringement (Compl. ¶14). The prayer for relief seeks a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. p. 5, ¶E.i).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

The complaint's reliance on a non-provided exhibit for core allegations raises several foundational questions for the case.

  • A primary issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: Does the complaint, which omits the identification of both the asserted claims and the accused products from its main body, provide sufficient factual detail to state a plausible claim for relief under the Twombly/Iqbal standard, or is it impermissibly conclusory?
  • A central factual question for discovery will be one of technological identification: What specific products and services from Defendant are accused, and what is their precise technical architecture for ensuring security and authenticating software?
  • Assuming the case proceeds, a key question on the merits will be one of architectural correspondence: Does the accused technology, once identified, operate using the "interlocking" generator-checker system described and claimed in the ’704 Patent, or does it achieve security through a fundamentally different, non-infringing method?