Secure Matrix LLC v. Dress Barn Omni Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Secure Matrix LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Dress Barn Omni, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01530, D. Del., 12/18/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and has an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products and services infringe a patent related to user authentication and verification systems.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for securely authenticating a user's identity for online interactions, such as logins or payments, often by using a mobile device to interact with a separate computer system.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-11-21	U.S. Patent No. 8,677,116 Priority Date
2014-03-18	U.S. Patent No. 8,677,116 Issued
2025-12-18	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,677,116 - "Systems and methods for authentication and verification"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a "growing need to authenticate users trying to access a secured internet portal...or a real-world secured device" and the related need for "a secure and fast online electronic payment capability" as consumer transactions increasingly move online (’116 Patent, col. 1:19-29).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a three-part authentication method managed by a central verification server. First, a computer providing a secured service (e.g., a website) sends a "reusable identifier" to the verification server (’116 Patent, col. 1:32-35). Second, the user's electronic device (e.g., a smartphone) sends a copy of that same reusable identifier along with separate "user verification information" to the server (’116 Patent, col. 1:35-38). Third, a processor evaluates both signals, and if the user is authorized, transmits an authorization signal back to the user's device and the originating computer (’116 Patent, col. 1:40-49). This architecture, depicted in Figure 2, separates the presentation of an identifier (e.g., a QR code on a screen) from the submission of user credentials (e.g., from a mobile app), aiming to enhance security (’116 Patent, col. 6:4-33).
• Technical Importance: The approach aims to simplify and secure authentication by using identifiers that do not contain user-specific or transaction-specific information, which can reduce server processing loads and enhance security by not transmitting sensitive data in the initial step (’116 Patent, col. 6:34-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, referring only to "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11) and "Exemplary '116 Patent Claims" in a referenced but unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶16). Independent claim 1 is analyzed here as a representative claim.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A method of using a computer system to authenticate a user.
  • Receiving a first signal from a computer providing a secured capability, the signal comprising a "reusable identifier" assigned for use for a "finite period of time."
  • Receiving a second signal from an electronic device used by the user, the signal comprising a copy of the reusable identifier and "user verification information."
  • Using a processor to evaluate, based on the first and second signals, whether the user is authorized.
  • In response to an indication of authorization, transmitting a third signal with authorization information to the electronic device and/or the computer.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in "charts incorporated into this Count" (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of any accused instrumentality. It alleges infringement through Defendant's acts of "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products and through internal employee testing (Compl. ¶11-12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates by reference claim charts from an "Exhibit 2" that was not provided with the filed document (Compl. ¶16-17). The complaint body itself does not contain factual allegations mapping specific features of any accused product to the limitations of the asserted claims. Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed and specific points of contention cannot be identified.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "reusable identifier assigned for use by the secured capability for a finite period of time" (from Claim 1).
• Context and Importance: The definition of this term appears central to the claim's scope. The dual constraints of being "reusable" yet valid only for a "finite period" will likely be a focus of dispute, determining whether the claim reads on transient session tokens, persistent but rotating identifiers, or other authentication data structures. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will dictate the types of authentication schemes that fall within the patent's scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the identifier as a "transaction start indicator' or 'TSSID' that denotes the beginning of a process" and states it may simply be a "short sequence of numbers, letters, or characters" that does not contain confidential information, which may support a broad reading on various types of session identifiers (’116 Patent, col. 8:53-62, col. 9:1-6).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples where a "predefined and previously generated list" of identifiers is used "sequentially" in a "round robin" fashion, and where an identifier, once used, "cannot be used again within the same time period" but can be reused in a "subsequent period of time" (’116 Patent, col. 9:22-51). This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific system of managed, rotating reuse rather than any identifier that is merely temporary.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells the "Exemplary Defendant Products to their customers for use in end-user products in a manner that infringes" (’116 Patent, Compl. ¶15). It also references "product literature and website materials" in an unprovided Exhibit 2 as evidence of inducement (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the word "willful" but alleges that service of the complaint "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶13). This allegation may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement if Defendant's allegedly infringing conduct continues.

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: The primary immediate question is whether the complaint, which relies entirely on an unprovided exhibit to identify the accused products and articulate its infringement theory, meets federal pleading standards. The initial phase of the case will likely focus on compelling the production of these foundational details.
2. Definitional Scope: A core technical and legal issue will be the construction of "reusable identifier assigned for use...for a finite period of time." Whether this term is construed broadly to cover common, temporary authentication tokens or narrowly to require a specific "round robin" or managed recycling system, as described in the patent's embodiments, will be critical to the infringement analysis.
3. Basis for Indirect Infringement: A key factual question will be what evidence supports the claim of induced infringement. The case will require Plaintiff to demonstrate not only that Defendant’s customers directly infringe, but that Defendant took affirmative steps with the specific intent to encourage that infringement, for which the currently absent "product literature and website materials" would be essential evidence.