Authentixx LLC v. Bank Of America Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Authentixx LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Bank of America Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00287, E.D. Tex., 04/29/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products and services infringe two patents related to methods for authenticating electronic content, such as web pages, to prevent online fraud.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the security risk of phishing, where fraudulent websites and emails mimic legitimate entities to steal user data, by providing a system to visually or otherwise confirm the authenticity of the content's source.
• Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent No. 7,631,191 was the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR2014-00475), which concluded with a certificate issued on February 23, 2018, cancelling all claims of the patent. U.S. Patent No. 10,355,863 was issued with a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term and suggests that potential obviousness-type double patenting issues were addressed during its prosecution.

Case Timeline

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the risk of consumers being defrauded by malicious actors who create look-alike websites or send fraudulent emails that mimic legitimate organizations to steal personal information like account numbers ('863 Patent, col. 1:31-61). Consumers often fail to notice subtle differences in URLs or check for security protocols, making them vulnerable ('863 Patent, col. 2:1-6).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a client-server system to verify the authenticity of electronic content. A user's computer is equipped with software (e.g., a browser plug-in) and configured with a personalized "authenticity stamp." When the user requests a page from a participating website, a dedicated authentication server intercepts the page, inserts a unique "authenticity key," and sends the modified page to the user. The plug-in on the user's computer recognizes the key and displays the user’s pre-configured stamp, providing a visual confirmation that the page is genuine and not a forgery ('863 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a user-centric security indicator that is visually distinct and personally configured, intended to be more intuitive and reliable for the average user than manually verifying URLs or security certificates ('863 Patent, col. 4:10-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims without specifying them, referring to an external exhibit not attached to the pleading (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative of the technology.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • A method for authenticating a web page, comprising:
  • storing an "authenticity stamp" in a "preferences file" on a designated server;
  • creating an "authenticity key" with information to locate that preferences file;
  • receiving a web page request from a client computer;
  • receiving a request for the authenticity key;
  • sending the web page data and providing the authenticity key to the client;
  • at the client, manipulating the key to determine the file location, locating the file, retrieving the stamp, and displaying it.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶12).

U.S. Patent No. 7,631,191 - "System and method for authenticating a web page," issued December 8, 2009

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the same problem as the '863 Patent: a user's lack of confidence in the authenticity of a web page due to the ease with which icons and branding can be copied and URLs can be spoofed ('191 Patent, col. 1:20-40).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where an authentication server inserts an "authenticity key" into web page data before it is sent to a user. The user's computer contains logic to verify this key and, if authentic, display a user-defined "authenticity stamp," confirming the page's origin ('191 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:5-21). The system architecture is depicted in Figure 4, which is identical to Figure 4 of the '863 Patent.
• Technical Importance: The patent addresses the need for a more robust method of verifying a website's identity beyond the standard security protocols available at the time, focusing on a user-configurable visual confirmation ('191 Patent, col. 2:40-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶18). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • A method comprising:
  • transforming, at an authentication host computer, received data by inserting an authenticity key to create formatted data; and
  • returning the formatted data to enable retrieval of the authenticity key and location of a preferences file, from which an authenticity stamp is retrieved.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶18).
• Note on Patent Status: An Inter Partes Review Certificate issued on February 23, 2018, indicates that all claims of the '191 Patent (claims 1-23 and 25-32) were cancelled ('191 Patent, IPR Certificate, p. 24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name (Compl. ¶¶12, 18). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" detailed in external exhibits that were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶14, 20).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no description of the relevant features, technical functionality, or market context of any Bank of America product or service. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the unspecified products "practice the technology claimed" (Compl. ¶¶14, 20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 3 and 4) that are not provided with the filed document (Compl. ¶¶15, 21). The pleading itself offers only a bare assertion that Defendant's unspecified products infringe the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶12, 18). Consequently, a detailed tabular analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • '863 Patent:
    • Architectural Questions: A central question for the court will be whether the Plaintiff can show that Bank of America's systems employ the specific multi-component architecture required by the claims. This includes demonstrating the existence of "one or more designated servers" performing the distinct functions of creating an "authenticity key" and using it to locate and retrieve a user-defined "authenticity stamp" from a "preferences file" ('863 Patent, cl. 1).
    • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint provides no factual basis to suggest that Bank of America's online banking or security features operate according to the complex, multi-step data flow recited in claim 1. Discovery will be required to determine if any feature corresponds to the claimed method of storing, keying, and retrieving a user-specific stamp.
  • '191 Patent:
    • Validity and Enforceability: The primary point of contention is the legal status of the patent itself. Given that an IPR certificate indicates all claims of the '191 Patent were cancelled six years prior to the filing of the complaint, a threshold legal question is whether Plaintiff has any valid, enforceable claim to assert. The decision to file suit on this patent raises the question of its viability as a basis for an infringement action.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Analysis of claim terms for the '191 Patent is omitted, as the patent's claims have been cancelled. The following analysis pertains to representative independent claim 1 of the '863 Patent.

• The Term: "authenticity stamp"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the ultimate output of the claimed method—the indicator that confirms authenticity to the end-user. Its construction is critical because it determines what type of security feature in an accused product could be considered an infringing equivalent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the stamp with significant flexibility, including a graphical "diamond shape" with text, a "flashing icon," an "audio" indicator, or even personal information known only to the user and sender, such as an account balance or last transaction date ('863 Patent, col. 4:10-26; col. 5:1-6). This may support an argument that the term covers a wide variety of user-facing security indicators.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the stamp to be retrieved from a "preferences file" using a specific "authenticity key." This may support an argument that the term is not merely the indicator itself, but is functionally tied to the claimed method of its storage and retrieval. A generic, non-configurable security icon not stored in or retrieved from a server-side preferences file might therefore fall outside the scope of the term.

• The Term: "preferences file"

• Context and Importance: The existence and nature of this "file" are central to the claimed invention, as it is the server-side repository for the user-configurable "authenticity stamp". Infringement of claim 1 requires proof that an accused system uses such a file.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue this term should be construed broadly to mean any data structure or database entry on a server that stores user-specific configuration data for a security feature.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly refers to a distinct "file" and discusses the importance of obscuring its "file location," which may suggest a discrete data object rather than a field within a larger user profile database ('863 Patent, cl. 1; col. 12:1-3). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could require Plaintiff to prove the existence of a specific type of data architecture, not just the storage of user data in general.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement. It requests that the case be declared "exceptional" for the purpose of recovering attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but does not plead facts to support a claim for enhanced damages due to willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284 (Compl. ¶G(i)).

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

1. Patent Viability: A threshold and potentially case-dispositive issue is the enforceability of the '191 Patent. Can Plaintiff maintain a cause of action on a patent for which a USPTO certificate, issued years before the suit, appears to have cancelled all claims?
2. Pleading Sufficiency: A second key question is one of procedural compliance: does the complaint satisfy federal pleading standards by failing to identify any specific accused product and by relying on conclusory allegations and unavailable exhibits? This raises the question of whether the action can proceed past a motion to dismiss.
3. Technical Correspondence: Should the case proceed to the merits, a central issue for the '863 Patent will be one of architectural equivalence: can Plaintiff demonstrate that Defendant's security infrastructure utilizes the specific, multi-step process of using an "authenticity key" to access a "preferences file" to retrieve a user-defined "authenticity stamp," or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed invention and the accused technology?