DCT

2:23-cv-00456

Accessify LLC v. Financial Times Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00456, E.D. Tex., 09/29/2023
  • Venue Allegations: The complaint alleges that venue is proper because the Defendant is not a resident of the United States and may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online news publication, FT.com, and its associated paywall technology infringe seven U.S. patents related to providing secured, limited previews of digital content, controlling access based on user authorization, and translating web addresses.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for allowing potential customers to preview digital content (such as news articles) in a "masked" or utility-reduced format to encourage paid subscriptions without enabling unauthorized copying of the full work.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-05-16 ’656 Patent Priority Date
2000-11-13 ’722 Patent Priority Date
2001-12-01 ’032 Patent Priority Date
2003-12-20 ’356, ’397, ’489, ’424 Patents Priority Date
2006-05-02 ’722 Patent Issue Date
2008-01-01 ’032 Patent Issue Date
2009-07-14 ’397 Patent Issue Date
2010-07-06 ’656 Patent Issue Date
2011-11-29 ’489 Patent Issue Date
2020-02-04 ’424 Patent Issue Date
2022-08-16 ’356 Patent Issue Date
2023-09-29 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,418,356 - Enhanced Security Preview Of Digital Content (issued August 16, 2022)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s specification describes the "seller's dilemma" in distributing digital content, where providing a meaningful preview for purchase evaluation inherently creates a risk of unauthorized copying and distribution, while restricting access hinders sales (US 10,554,424 B2, col. 2:30-40).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for distributing a "masked" or "reduced-utility" version of a digital work. This is achieved by adding "masking effect layers" to the original content, which allows a user to preview it without having full utility (US 10,554,424 B2, col. 9:48-54). The method specifically claims dynamically generating this masking effect based on criteria from the customer, such as a search term, where the mask is adapted to affect portions of the work outside of the selected relevant portion (Compl. ¶45). The original, unmasked work is transmitted only after a subsequent communication from the user satisfies a predetermined criterion, such as payment (Compl. ¶45).
  • Technical Importance: This technology sought to provide a more sophisticated and flexible preview mechanism that could be tailored to a user's specific interest (e.g., search results), balancing the publisher's need for security with the user's desire for a relevant preview (US 10,554,424 B2, col. 10:15-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
    • Receiving a request for a digital work and criteria (including a search term) from a customer.
    • Creating a masked digital work by adding one or more dynamically generated masking effect layers to the original work based on the criteria.
    • The masking effect is utility-reducing and affects aspects like display, audio, or resolution.
    • Transmitting the masked digital work.
    • Receiving a further communication relating to the work.
    • Evaluating if the further communication satisfies a predetermined criterion.
    • Transmitting the original digital work if the criterion is satisfied.
    • The masking effect is adapted to affect portions of the work determined to be outside a selected relevant portion generated by the search term.

U.S. Patent No. 7,316,032 - Method For Allowing A Customer To Preview, Acquire And/Or Pay For Information And A System Therefor (issued January 1, 2008)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the challenge of distributing electronic content where traditional copy protection is too restrictive for previews, while unprotected previews devalue the product by allowing easy duplication (’032 Patent, col. 1:19-30, col. 2:5-10).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for providing a "preview version" of an information product created by "superposing a masking effect on an original form" of the product (’032 Patent, Abstract). This preview is designed to be representative enough for a user to make a purchase decision but simultaneously interferes with the full, unimpeded consumption of the original work (’032 Patent, Abstract). The system can then control the "presence, absence, duration...and permanence" of the masking effect based on at least one criterion, such as payment, to grant access to the original version (’032 Patent, col. 5:1-9). Figures 5b-5f illustrate various types of masking effects, from graphic overlays to content distortion (’032 Patent, p. 7-9).
  • Technical Importance: This method provided a technical framework for the "freemium" or metered access models that have become central to the digital publishing and software industries, allowing businesses to offer functional-but-limited versions of their products as a marketing tool (’032 Patent, col. 2:5-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶61).
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
    • Providing a preview version of an information product.
    • The preview version is created by superposing a masking effect on an original form of the information product.
    • The preview version is representative of the original and enables a purchase decision, while the masking effect interferes with receiving the original form.
    • Allowing a user to access the preview version.
    • Controlling at least one of presence, absence, duration of application, and permanence of the masking effect based on a criterion to thereby control access to the original product.

U.S. Patent No. 7,562,397 - Method And System For Facilitating Search, Selection, Preview, Purchase Evaluation, Offering For Sale, Distribution, And/Or Sale Of Digital Content And Enhancing The Security Thereof (issued July 14, 2009)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for controlling the distribution of a digital work by arranging it into a plurality of layers, including a first layer with a masking effect and a second layer with the content. Superposing the layers creates a masked preview version for the user, and the masking effect is controlled to regulate access to the original work (Compl. ¶79).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶78).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Financial Times paywall and its associated functionalities, which present a limited version of content before subscription, practice this layered masking method (Compl. ¶79).

U.S. Patent No. 8,069,489 - Method And System For Facilitating Search, Selection, Preview, Purchase Evaluation, Offering For U.S. Patent Documents Sale, Distribution, And/Or Sale Of Digital Content And Enhancing The Security Thereof (issued November 29, 2011)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for controlling access to a digital work by providing a masked configuration created by applying a masking effect. A user is allowed to access the masked version for preview purposes, with the system controlling the presence, duration, and permanence of the masking effect based on at least one criterion (Compl. ¶95).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶94).
  • Accused Features: The Financial Times paywall system, which provides a masked or limited view of articles to non-subscribers and removes that limitation upon payment, is accused of infringing (Compl. ¶95).

U.S. Patent No. 10,554,424 - Enhanced Security Preview Of Digital Content (issued February 4, 2020)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent covers a method where a request for an information product is received from a user device, and a preview version is generated based on customer-specified criteria. A masking effect is selected and superposed onto the preview to create a masked version, which is then provided to the user for evaluation prior to purchase (Compl. ¶111).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶110).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Financial Times paywall system performs these steps when a user requests an article and is presented with a limited, masked view (Compl. ¶111).

U.S. Patent No. 7,039,722 - Method And Apparatus For Translating Web Addresses And Using Numerically Entered Web Addresses (issued May 2, 2006)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method of generating a request for a domain name by receiving a name with a top-level domain and a sub-domain portion (e.g., "financialtimes.com") and translating it using a formula to generate a different, scheme-specific name (e.g., "ft.com") (Compl. ¶127-128).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶126).
  • Accused Features: The complaint identifies the Defendant's use of both the "financialtimes.com" and "ft.com" domains, where a request for the former is translated to the latter, as the infringing functionality (Compl. ¶128). This is illustrated in the complaint via screenshots showing a browser request for "financialtimes.com" (Compl. p. 12, FIG. 3A) and the subsequent loading of the "ft.com" website (Compl. p. 13, FIG. 3B).

U.S. Patent No. 7,752,656 - Controlling Access To Name Service For A Domain Name System (issued July 6, 2010)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a method for controlling access to content at a name server. The server receives requests for domain names, determines if the requests are associated with user access privileges, and responds with the IP address for the content server (for privileged requests) or an IP address for an authorization server (for non-privileged requests) (Compl. ¶137).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶136).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Defendant's name servers perform this method by differentiating between requests from subscribers (privileged) and non-subscribers (non-privileged) to determine whether to serve full content or a paywalled/authorization page (Compl. ¶137-138).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The Accused Products are the Financial Times websites, including the domains https://financialtimes.com/ and https://ft.com/, and the associated paywall systems, software, and hardware used to distribute digital news content (Compl. ¶34-35).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The Financial Times website operates on a subscription model, where non-subscribers who attempt to access an article are presented with a limited view or an overlay that blocks the full content and requires payment or subscription to proceed (Compl. ¶35). A screenshot in the complaint shows a subscription offer page obscuring access to an article on the Financial Times's website (Compl. p. 12, FIG. 2B). This paywall functionality is the primary feature accused of infringing the patents related to content masking and previewing. The system also utilizes domain name translation, redirecting users from "financialtimes.com" to "ft.com" (Compl. ¶128). The Financial Times is a prominent international news organization, and its paywall is a core component of its digital business strategy (Compl. ¶5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’11,418,356 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving a request for a digital work and a criteria from a customer; A user requests a digital work (an article) by clicking a link, which includes criteria such as the subject matter of the article. ¶45 col. 10:17-24
creating, in response... a masked digital work by adding one or more masking effect layers... the masking effect being dynamically generated... based at least in part on the criteria received from the customer... In response to the user's request, the FT system creates a masked version of the article by applying a paywall overlay (a masking effect layer). ¶45 col. 42:1-12
transmitting, in response to the request, the masked digital work; The FT system transmits the paywalled version of the article to the user's device. ¶45 col. 9:8-14
receiving... a further communication relating to the digital work; The FT system receives a communication from the user, such as providing payment information to subscribe. ¶45 col. 9:8-14
evaluating whether the further communication satisfies one of a plurality of predetermined criteria; and in response... transmitting the digital work in the original form... The FT system evaluates the communication (e.g., processes the payment) and, if the criteria are satisfied, transmits the full, unmasked article. ¶45 col. 9:8-14
wherein the criteria from the customer includes a search term that is used to generate a selected relevant portion of the digital work, the masking effect being adapted to affect... a portion of the digital work determined to be outside of the selected relevant portion. The complaint alleges that the criteria includes a search term and that the masking effect is applied to portions of the work outside the relevant selection generated by that term. ¶45 col. 10:17-24
  • Identified Points of Contention (’356 Patent):
    • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges the user's "criteria" includes a "search term" that generates a "selected relevant portion," with the mask applied outside that portion. A central question may be whether merely clicking a headline link satisfies this specific, detailed limitation, or if the claim requires an explicit user search query that results in a partially-masked document.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence supports the allegation that the paywall is "dynamically generated" based on user criteria in the manner claimed, versus a static rule that applies a standard paywall to all premium articles for all non-subscribers?

’7,316,032 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
providing a preview version of said information product; The FT system provides a limited or partial view of an article to a non-subscribing user. ¶62 col. 5:1-9
said preview version being created by superposing a masking effect on an original form of said information product... said masking effect being superposed on a region of said information product and adapted to interfere with receiving of said information product in said original form... The FT paywall is alleged to be a "masking effect" superposed on the full article, interfering with the user's ability to receive the original, complete work. ¶62 col. 5:1-9
allowing said user to access said preview version of said information product; The user is able to view the headline, a portion of the text, and the paywall overlay on their device. ¶62 col. 5:1-9
and controlling at least one of presence, absence, duration of application and permanence of said masking effect... in accordance with at least one criterion... The FT system controls the presence or absence of the paywall based on the criterion of the user's subscription status. ¶62 col. 5:1-9
  • Identified Points of Contention (’032 Patent):
    • Scope Questions: Does an HTML/CSS overlay that blocks content on a webpage constitute "superposing a masking effect on an original form of said information product" as the term is used in the patent? A court may need to determine if this requires the mask to be integrated into the data of the work itself, rather than being a presentational layer.
    • Technical Questions: Does the accused system "control" a masking effect on a single product, or does it simply serve two distinct and separate products (a paywalled HTML page vs. a full HTML page) depending on user status? The distinction may be critical to the infringement analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "masking effect" (asserted in claims of the ’356, ’032, ’397, ’489, and ’424 patents)

  • Context and Importance: This is the central technical concept across most of the asserted patents. The definition of this term will determine whether the Financial Times's paywall, which typically functions as an overlay blocking content, falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction is dispositive for the core infringement allegations.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the parent ’032 patent provides a broad definition, stating a masking effect can be an "interruption", "discontinuity", "disorientation", "veil", or "masquerade" for the purpose of providing a preview (’032 Patent, col. 5:1-9). This language could support construing the term to cover a paywall overlay that acts as a "veil."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Embodiments in the patents often illustrate more technically integrated forms of masking, such as graphic overlays on images, distortion of content, or blurring effects (’032 Patent, Figs. 5b, 5e, 5f). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to these forms of utility reduction that alter the underlying content's presentation, not merely an access-gating UI element.

The Term: "dynamically generated" (’356 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation in the most recent patent-in-suit, the ’356 Patent, appears to require a more sophisticated function than a static paywall. Its construction is critical to determining whether the accused system performs the specific inventive concept of that patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses generating a "customized preview" based on "customer input or relevance criteria," which suggests a responsive, on-the-fly process (US 10,554,424 B2, col. 42:1-12). This could be argued to cover any server-side process that generates a paywalled page in response to a user's request for a specific article.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language links the "dynamically generated" masking effect to criteria that include a "search term" used to create a "selected relevant portion." This suggests the generation is not merely responsive to any request, but is specifically tied to an active user search that results in a tailored, partially-masked output, which may be a more specific function than what the accused system performs.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Financial Times provides the paywall system and encourages and instructs end-users to use it in an infringing manner (e.g., by clicking on articles and subscribing) (Compl. ¶46, ¶63). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the paywall has special features specifically designed for infringement and no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶47, ¶64).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patents as of the filing of the complaint (post-suit knowledge) (Compl. ¶48, ¶65). The complaint also alleges willful blindness based on an asserted "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶49, ¶66).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term “masking effect,” which is described in the patents with examples like content blurring and distortion, be construed broadly enough to cover the functionality of a modern web paywall, which typically operates as a conditional content overlay or redirect?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the accused Financial Times system perform the specific, multi-step methods recited in the claims, particularly the ’356 patent’s requirement for a mask that is “dynamically generated” based on user “criteria” that includes a “search term”? The outcome may depend on whether routine web server operations are found to meet these detailed claim limitations.
  • For the patents related to domain names and DNS servers (’722 and ’656), a central question will be whether standard, widely-used internet infrastructure practices—such as URL redirection and subscriber-based access control—can be mapped onto the specific methods claimed in patents from an earlier technological era.