Authentixx LLC v. Santander Bank NA

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Authentixx LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Santander Bank, N.A. (Massachusetts)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-03642, S.D.N.Y., 05/12/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having an established place of business in the Southern District of New York and having committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products and services infringe a patent related to methods for authenticating electronic content, such as web pages or emails.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of online fraud, such as phishing and spoofing, by providing a system to verify that digital content originates from its purported source.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of a series of applications dating back to 2000 and claims priority to a 1999 provisional application. The face of the patent lists extensive prior litigation and post-grant proceedings involving a parent patent, but the complaint itself does not reference this history.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1999-09-09	U.S. Patent No. 10,355,863 Priority Date
2019-07-16	U.S. Patent No. 10,355,863 Issue Date
2024-05-12	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,355,863 - "System and method for authenticating electronic content," issued July 16, 2019 (’863 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the ease with which malicious actors can copy corporate logos and create deceptive URLs to defraud consumers, a practice commonly known as "phishing" or "spoofing." Consumers may lack confidence that a web page or email is authentic, creating a need for a reliable verification method. (’863 Patent, col. 1:25-40, col. 2:3-9).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a server associated with the content owner inserts a unique "authenticity marker" into electronic content (like a web page) before sending it to a user. Logic on the user's computer, such as a browser plug-in, then verifies this marker to confirm the content's authenticity. The marker can be a unique visual "stamp" (e.g., a fractal image) or dynamic, non-public information known only to the user and the content owner (e.g., a recent transaction amount). (’863 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:11-22). The overall architecture involves a user computer, a web server, an authentication server, and a security engine. (’863 Patent, Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: The described system aims to provide a layer of security independent of the communication protocol (like HTTPS) by validating the content itself, thereby increasing user trust and combating identity theft. (’863 Patent, col. 1:41-61, col. 4:45-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims, instead referring to "one or more claims" and "Exemplary '863 Patent Claims" detailed in a separate, unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶¶11, 13).
• Independent Claim 1, a method claim, includes the following essential elements:
  • storing at least one authenticity stamp in a preferences file located in a file location accessible by one or more designated servers;
  • creating, by the one or more designated servers, an authenticity key with information to locate the preferences file;
  • receiving a request from a client computer for the at least one web page;
  • creating, by the one or more designated servers, formatted data corresponding to the requested at least one web page;
  • receiving, at the one or more designated servers, a request for the authenticity key used to locate the preferences file;
  • sending the formatted data to the client computer;
  • providing the authenticity key for manipulation to determine the file location of the preferences file;
  • manipulating the authenticity key to determine the file location of the preferences file;
  • locating the preferences file in the file location;
  • retrieving the at least one authenticity stamp from the preferences file; and
  • enabling the at least one authenticity stamp to be displayed with a representation of the formatted data on a display of the client computer.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products, methods, or services. It refers generally to "Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" and the "Exemplary Defendant Products." (Compl. ¶¶11, 13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide any description of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities. All allegations of infringing functionality are incorporated by reference from an exhibit that was not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶13-14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that its infringement theory is detailed in claim charts in an "Exhibit 2," which was not provided with the publicly filed complaint. (Compl. ¶¶13-14). The complaint’s narrative alleges that Defendant directly infringes by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products." (Compl. ¶11). It further alleges that these products "practice the technology claimed by the '863 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '863 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶13).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold issue for the court may be whether the complaint, which contains no specific factual allegations of infringement and instead incorporates them by reference from an unprovided exhibit, meets the pleading standards established by Twombly and Iqbal.
  • Technical Questions: Without identification of the accused products or the specific infringement theory, it is not possible to identify technical questions. A central question for discovery will be to identify precisely which of Defendant's systems are accused and how they are alleged to perform each step of the asserted claims, such as creating an "authenticity key" or retrieving an "authenticity stamp" from a "preferences file."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "authenticity stamp"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the first and last steps of Claim 1 and is the ultimate indicator of authenticity to the user. Its construction is critical because it defines the tangible output of the claimed method. Practitioners may focus on whether this term is limited to a visual icon or graphic, as shown in the patent’s figures, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover non-visual or dynamic data.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the stamp as potentially comprising "personal information relating to the user's account," such as "last payment date, amount of last transaction, account balance and the like." (’863 Patent, col. 5:1-5).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly illustrates the stamp as a visual element, such as a "diamond shape, which includes text" or an "embedded authenticity stamp" within a graphical image. (’863 Patent, col. 4:15-21, Fig. 2, Fig. 3).

The Term: "preferences file"

• Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires storing the "authenticity stamp" in a "preferences file" and later locating and retrieving it. The nature, content, and location of this "file" will be a key issue in determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on whether this requires a discrete, standalone file on a user's computer or if it could read on data stored in a less conventional format, such as browser cookies, cache, or a database entry.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition that would broaden the term beyond its ordinary meaning.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests a specific implementation, stating the "preferences file is stored on the user's 110 file system" and that its "location is not readily known to the plug-in." (’863 Patent, col. 6:37-40). It also states the file is preferably placed in a "random directory to help obscure the location." (’863 Patent, col. 11:65-col. 12:2). This could support a narrower construction requiring a distinct file in an obscured location within a conventional file system.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain any allegations of indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement in its infringement count. The prayer for relief requests a judgment that the "case be declared exceptional," but the complaint pleads no specific facts to support a finding of willfulness or egregious conduct, such as allegations of pre-suit knowledge of the patent. (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶E.i).

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

1. Procedural Sufficiency: The most immediate question is a procedural one: does a complaint that contains no operative facts supporting its infringement claim, and instead relies entirely on incorporation by reference of an unprovided exhibit, satisfy federal pleading standards?
2. Definitional Scope: Assuming the case proceeds, a core issue will be one of claim construction. Can the term "authenticity stamp", which is visually depicted in patent figures, be construed to cover non-visual, dynamic data allegedly used in modern banking security systems?
3. Evidentiary Challenge: A key evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused, unidentified Santander systems perform each discrete step of the claimed method, particularly the creation and use of a client-side "preferences file" and a server-generated "authenticity key" as described in the patent.