DCT

2:17-cv-07302

Venadium LLC v. American Musical Supply Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Case Timeline

Date Event
1997-10-30 '549 Patent Priority Date
2001-12-11 '549 Patent Issue Date
2017-09-20 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,330,549 - "Protected Shareware"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,330,549, "Protected Shareware," issued December 11, 2001.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of protecting computer software from unauthorized use, particularly in a "shareware" distribution model where programs are easily copied. Conventional methods like physical "dongles" were seen as inconvenient, and simple encryption was insufficient because the decryption key would also have to be widely distributed (ʼ549 Patent, col. 1:36-48, col. 2:3-14).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where "protective code" embedded within a software program controls its functionality based on receiving digitally signed "authorization messages" from a trusted source, such as a supplier or billing agency. The program itself contains a public key that allows it to verify the authenticity of these messages, which are signed with the supplier's corresponding secret key, thereby enabling or disabling features securely (ʼ549 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:24-43). The process is illustrated in Figure 1, which depicts a "Protected Program" on a user's computer communicating with a "Billing Computer" and a "Billing Agency" to manage authorization.
  • Technical Importance: This method provided a more flexible and secure framework for software licensing and monetization than earlier physical copy-protection schemes, accommodating the trend toward online software distribution (ʼ549 Patent, col. 2:17-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention's core method.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • (a) inhibiting via the embedded protective code at least one functional feature of the computer program from running on a user computer until the user computer receives an authorization message that is digitally signed by an authorized party using a secret signing key, the secret signing key being associated with a public checking key;
    • (b) providing the embedded protective code with access to the public checking key;
    • (c) running an integrity self-check over the computer program to confirm that the computer program is in an anticipated state, the integrity self-check being embedded in the computer program;
    • (d) communicating the authorization message to the user computer;
    • (e) applying the public checking key to the authorization message for authenticating it; and
    • (f) enabling said functional feature to run on the user computer if the authorization message is authenticated and if the integrity self-check result confirms that the computer program is in the anticipated state.
  • The complaint reserves the right to modify its infringement theories, which may include asserting other claims (Compl. ¶15).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint identifies the accused product only by its URL and alleges it is used for "the sales and offering for sale of its products and services" (Compl. ¶10, ¶12). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical functionality of the website that is alleged to infringe. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an "Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations; however, this exhibit was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶12, ¶15). The complaint itself contains only conclusory allegations that the Defendant "directly infringes one or more claims of the 549 Patent... by making and using (including testing) its Accused Product" (Compl. ¶12). Without the claim charts or more detailed factual allegations, a direct comparison of the accused website to the claim elements is not possible based on the provided documents.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the patent’s claims, which describe a "computer program" with "embedded protective code," can be interpreted to cover a distributed client-server system like an e-commerce website. The specification appears to describe a self-contained software application residing on a user's local computer (ʼ549 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 8:63-65). The plaintiff’s theory would need to map the elements of a local "protected program" to the functions of a remote web server and a user's web browser.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint lacks factual allegations demonstrating how the accused website performs the specific technical steps of the asserted claims. For instance, what evidence suggests the website uses an "authorization message that is digitally signed... using a secret signing key" and verified with a "public checking key" (asymmetric cryptography), as required by claim 1, rather than other common web authentication or session management technologies? Further, there are no facts alleged to support the practice of the "integrity self-check" limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "computer program"

  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical because the patent's disclosure focuses on a discrete, executable "shareware" program on a "user's computer" (ʼ549 Patent, col. 8:45-51, Fig. 1), whereas the accused instrumentality is a website. The outcome of the case may depend on whether a distributed, server-based web application falls within the scope of this term as understood in the context of the patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "computer program" itself is general and could be argued to encompass any set of instructions executed by a computer, including server-side code that delivers a web-based service.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly frames the invention in the context of "shareware" distribution, which typically involved distributing entire executable files (ʼ549 Patent, col. 1:51). The patent's figures and description of an "embedded protective code" within "the program 11" that runs on a "host computer 12" strongly suggest a single, local piece of software (ʼ549 Patent, col. 3:15-24, Fig. 1).

  • The Term: "authorization message that is digitally signed by an authorized party using a secret signing key"

  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it recites a specific cryptographic method (asymmetric key cryptography) that is core to the invention's security model. The plaintiff must prove that the accused website's authentication or access-granting mechanism meets this technical limitation, as opposed to using other security protocols like symmetric encryption or password-based authentication over a secure channel (e.g., HTTPS/TLS).

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any secure token or session key that cryptographically proves authority and enables functionality could be considered a "digitally signed" message in a general sense.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is specific, explicitly describing the use of a "secret signing key" and a corresponding "public checking key" to "authenticate" messages (ʼ549 Patent, col. 2:45-49, col. 3:33-43). This language points directly to the well-established technical meaning of a public/private key signature scheme, potentially narrowing the claim scope to exclude other forms of secure communication.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the Defendant has had knowledge of its infringement "at least the date that Defendant was served with a copy of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶16). This allegation appears to support a claim for post-filing willful infringement only, as no facts related to pre-suit knowledge are pleaded. The prayer for relief also seeks a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl., Prayer for Relief D).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "computer program", as described in the patent in the context of a standalone "shareware" application, be construed to read on the architecture of a modern, server-based e-commerce website? The resolution of this question will determine if the patent is applicable to the accused instrumentality.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what evidence will the plaintiff provide to demonstrate that the accused website utilizes the specific cryptographic method recited in the claims—an "authorization message" that is "digitally signed" with a secret/public key pair—as opposed to other common web security mechanisms for user authentication and session management? The complaint is presently devoid of such factual allegations.