DCT

2:11-cv-00396

TQP Development LLC v. Caterpillar Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Case Timeline

Date Event
1989-10-06 U.S. Patent No. 5,412,730 Priority Date
1995-05-02 U.S. Patent No. 5,412,730 Issue Date
2011-09-09 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,412,730 - "Encrypted Data Transmission System Employing Means for Randomly Altering the Encryption Keys"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,412,730, "Encrypted Data Transmission System Employing Means for Randomly Altering the Encryption Keys," issued May 2, 1995.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the security risk inherent in using a single, static encryption key for an entire data transmission. It notes that for increased security, the key should be changed frequently, but transmitting new keys over the communication channel—even if encrypted—presents a vulnerability. (’730 Patent, col. 2:21-36).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where the transmitting and receiving stations are supplied in advance with an identical "random number seed value." Both stations use this seed to initialize identical pseudo-random number generators. These generators produce a synchronized sequence of encryption keys at both ends without the keys ever being transmitted. The generators are advanced to the next key in the sequence "each time the transmitted data satisfies a predetermined condition," such as when a specific number of data blocks have been transmitted, as monitored by a block counter. (’730 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:37-54; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This method aimed to enhance data security over communication links like telephone lines by enabling dynamic key changes without the overhead or risk of transmitting the keys themselves. (’730 Patent, col. 2:13-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims of the ’730 Patent, with allegations mapping to the elements of independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶14).
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • providing a seed value to both said transmitter and receiver,
    • generating a first sequence of pseudo-random key values based on said seed value at said transmitter,
    • each new key value in said sequence being produced at a time dependent upon a predetermined characteristic of the data being transmitted over said link,
    • encrypting the data sent over said link at said transmitter in accordance with said first sequence,
    • generating a second sequence of pseudo-random key values based on said seed value at said receiver,
    • each new key value in said sequence being produced at a time dependent upon said predetermined characteristic of said data transmitted over said link such that said first and second sequences are identical to one another,
    • a new one of said key values in said first and said second sequences being produced each time a predetermined number of said blocks are transmitted over said link, and
    • decrypting the data sent over said link at said receiver in accordance with said second sequence.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the "methods practiced on various... websites" of each defendant for "transmitting data comprising a sequence of blocks in encrypted form over a communication link." (Compl. ¶¶14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21). Examples include Caterpillar's "myaccount.cataccessaccount.com", Boeing's "suppliers.boeing.com", and PepsiCo's "sso.mypepsico.com". (Compl. ¶¶14, 18, 20).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that when a customer connects to a defendant's website, a communication link is established between the host server and the client computer. (Compl. ¶14). Data is transmitted as a sequence of packets, and certain data transmissions are encrypted. (Compl. ¶14). To communicate with encrypted portions of the websites, client computers must agree to an encryption protocol, which is then implemented under the direction of the host server. (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges these websites use symmetric encryption algorithms where the same key is used to encrypt and decrypt data. (Compl. ¶14). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The infringement allegations are substantively identical for all named defendants. The following chart summarizes the allegations as applied to Defendant Caterpillar, which are representative of the allegations against all other Defendants.

U.S. Patent No. 5,412,730 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
providing a seed value to both said transmitter and receiver Caterpillar provides, or directs the client computer to provide, a seed value for both the transmitter and receiver in a symmetric encryption algorithm. ¶14 col. 4:15-20
generating a first sequence of pseudo-random key values based on said seed value at said transmitter Caterpillar generates, or directs the client computer to generate, a first sequence of pseudo-random key values, such as alpha and/or numerical values used to encrypt data, based on said seed value at the transmitter. ¶14 col. 3:25-36
each new key value in said sequence being produced at a time dependent upon a predetermined characteristic of the data being transmitted over said link Each new key value in the sequence is alleged to be produced at a time dependent upon a predetermined characteristic of the data being transmitted over the link. ¶14 col. 2:49-54
encrypting the data sent over said link at said transmitter in accordance with said first sequence Caterpillar encrypts data for transmission from the host server to the client and directs the client computer to encrypt data sent to the host server. ¶14 col. 3:45-50
generating a second sequence of pseudo-random key values based on said seed value at said receiver... such that said first and second sequences are identical Caterpillar generates, or directs the client computer to generate, a second sequence of pseudo-random key values such that the first and second sequences are identical to one another, as is used in a symmetric algorithm. ¶14 col. 4:4-11
a new one of said key values in said first and said second sequences being produced each time a predetermined number of said blocks are transmitted over said link A new one of said key values is alleged to be produced each time a predetermined number of blocks are transmitted over the link. ¶14 col. 12:47-52
decrypting the data sent over said link at said receiver in accordance with said second sequence Caterpillar decrypts data sent from the client, and directs the client computer to decrypt data transmitted from the host server. ¶14 col. 4:5-11
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that standard website encryption infringes a patent filed in 1992 based on a 1989 priority application. A central question may be whether the claim term "a time dependent upon a predetermined characteristic of the data being transmitted," as understood in the context of the patent's disclosure (e.g., block counting), can be construed to read on the key management and session renegotiation mechanisms of modern, standardized internet protocols like SSL/TLS.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused websites generate new keys specifically "each time a predetermined number of said blocks are transmitted"? The complaint makes this conclusory allegation but offers no specific facts about how the accused protocols operate, raising the question of whether key changes are tied to data volume, as claimed, or to other factors such as elapsed time, session timeouts, or protocol-level commands not contemplated by the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a time dependent upon a predetermined characteristic of the data being transmitted over said link"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the central mechanism for advancing the encryption keys. Its construction will likely determine whether the patent's specific method of synchronized key generation can be applied to the accused modern web encryption technologies. Practitioners may focus on whether this requires a direct causal link, like block counting, or can be interpreted more broadly to include any data-related trigger.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself uses the general term "predetermined characteristic," which could be argued to encompass more than just the specific examples in the specification. The patent's stated goal is to change keys frequently for "increased data security," a principle that could support a broader reading of the mechanisms used to achieve it. (’730 Patent, col. 2:21-23).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes this "characteristic" in terms of data quantity. The primary embodiment is a "block counter" that "may simply count the number of bytes (characters), words or blocks of data being transmitted" and produces an "advance signal" when the count reaches a predetermined interval number. (’730 Patent, col. 3:18-24). The final element of Claim 1 further specifies this, stating a new key is produced "each time a predetermined number of said blocks are transmitted." (’730 Patent, col. 12:49-52). This language may support a narrower construction limited to advancing keys based on data volume.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that by performing some steps and "directing and/or controlling others to perform the remaining steps," Defendants are directly and literally infringing. (Compl. ¶¶14, 15). This appears to be an allegation of divided infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), and the prayer for relief also seeks judgment for indirect infringement by way of inducing and/or contributing. (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶1). The factual basis for inducement is that a defendant's host server "directs the client computer" to perform encryption and decryption. (Compl. ¶14).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint states that "to the extent that facts learned in discovery show that Defendants' infringement... is, or has been willful, Plaintiff reserves the right to request such a finding." (Compl. ¶23). The prayer for relief requests a judgment that infringement was willful. (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶1).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim limitation requiring that new encryption keys be produced "at a time dependent upon a predetermined characteristic of the data being transmitted," which the patent specification exemplifies as counting data blocks, be construed to cover the session key management and renegotiation features of modern, standardized internet security protocols (e.g., SSL/TLS)?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: what factual support will emerge to show that the accused websites change encryption keys based specifically on the transmission of "a predetermined number of said blocks," as required by Claim 1, as opposed to other triggers such as session duration, handshake signals, or other events defined by the protocols themselves?