Gatekeeper Solutions Inc v. Trellix

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Gatekeeper Solutions Inc. (New York)
  • Defendant: Trellix, Inc. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DNL Zito
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00668, E.D. Tex., 08/13/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a place of business within the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Data Loss Prevention software products infringe a patent related to a system for preventing electronic communications from being sent to "conflicting recipients."
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the risk of misdirecting sensitive digital communications, such as emails, by automatically enforcing rules to prevent disclosure to unauthorized or conflicting parties.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was made aware of the patent-in-suit prior to the lawsuit's filing, which may form the basis for the willfulness allegation.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,032,038 - Recipient control system for ensuring non-conflicting and comprehensive distribution of digital information and method thereof, issued May 12, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the problem of electronic communications, such as emails, being sent to unintended recipients due to user error (e.g., address auto-complete mistakes). This presents a significant risk when the communication contains sensitive or privileged information, as post-delivery requests to delete the message are often ineffective (’038 Patent, col. 1:22-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that intercepts an outgoing electronic communication and inspects the recipient list against a set of pre-defined rules or parameters to detect "conflicting" recipients. If a conflict is found (e.g., sending a message to opposing counsel and a client on the same email), the system stops the communication and notifies the user, who may be given an option to override the block or correct the recipient list (’038 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The system provides an automated, preventative control to safeguard against the inadvertent disclosure of confidential information, a critical function in legal, corporate, and other professional settings where information security is paramount (’038 Patent, col. 1:45-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 23, among others (Compl. ¶11, ¶14, p. 4).
• Independent Claim 1, a system claim, recites the following essential elements:
  • means for receiving one or more parameters identifying conditions for a conflicting recipient for each recipient;
  • means for storing said parameters;
  • means for comparing the parameters of each recipient of said electronic communication with said parameters of other recipients to determine whether any of the other recipients is a conflicting recipient;
  • means for stopping the sending of the electronic communication when said comparing means determines at least one conflicting recipient;
  • means for notifying the user of each conflicting recipient as determined by said comparing means and the parameters that identify each conflicting recipient; and
  • means for sending the electronic communication when said comparing means does not determine at least one conflicting recipient.
• The complaint alleges infringement of claims 1-45, thereby reserving the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶32).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products include "Trellix software and the Trellinx [sic] Data Loss Prevention software, and e-mail product," which are collectively referred to as the "Trellix DLP products," including "Trellix DLP Prevent" (Compl. ¶3, p. 6).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are alleged to be a suite of Data Loss Prevention (DLP) tools that allow administrators to create and deploy policies to prevent sensitive data exfiltration (Compl. p. 6). Functionally, the software inspects outgoing communications like emails, applies policies based on user-defined rules and parameters, and can block messages that violate those policies (Compl. pp. 6-7). When a message is blocked due to a policy violation, the system can return the message to the sender with a notification detailing the reason for the block (Compl. p. 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides a narrative claim chart with screenshots to support its infringement allegations against the '038 Patent. A diagram in the complaint illustrates how administrators create policies that are deployed to endpoints to block or allow user actions based on those policies (Compl. p. 6).

’038 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Means-Plus-Function Interpretation: All elements of asserted independent claim 1 are drafted in "means-plus-function" format under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). A primary issue will be whether the accused Trellix software components are structurally equivalent to the specific algorithms and structures disclosed in the '038 patent specification (e.g., the flowcharts in Figs. 1-7, database structures in Figs. 9-10) for performing the claimed functions. The complaint's allegations focus on functional similarity, leaving open the question of structural equivalence.
• Scope of "Conflicting Recipient": The infringement theory hinges on equating the accused product's general "policy violation" framework with the patent's "conflicting recipient" system. A key technical and legal question will be whether the scope of "conflicting recipient," as informed by the patent's examples (e.g., competitors, opposing parties in a lawsuit), can read on any recipient that triggers a generic data loss prevention rule (e.g., one based on message content rather than recipient identity or relationships).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

As the asserted claims are in means-plus-function format, the "construction" will involve identifying the claimed function and the corresponding structure in the specification for each "means for" element.

The Term: "means for comparing the parameters of each recipient...to determine whether...any of the other recipients is a conflicting recipient" (Claim 1c)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core logical operation of the invention. The outcome of the infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the accused product's policy engine is found to be a structural equivalent of the '038 patent's disclosed comparison algorithm. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is the central point of technical differentiation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (of Function): A party may argue the function is broadly "comparing recipient data against rules to find a conflict," citing the specification's varied examples of parameters like email addresses, domain names, and titles (’038 Patent, col. 5:6-65).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (of Structure): A party may argue the corresponding structure is narrowly limited to the specific flowchart logic shown in Figures 1-5 and the database lookup schemes shown in Figures 9 and 10, and their equivalents, not just any generic rule-comparison engine (’038 Patent, Fig. 2; Fig. 9).

The Term: "conflicting recipient"

• Context and Importance: This term, appearing in the preamble and several limitations, defines the problem the patent claims to solve. Its construction will determine whether the patent applies narrowly to relationship-based conflicts or broadly to any rule-based communication block.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term encompasses any recipient whose inclusion in a communication is forbidden by a predefined rule, as the term itself is not explicitly defined with limiting language in the claims.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term is implicitly defined by the specification’s examples, which focus on conflicts arising from relationships between parties, such as "competitors, an insurer and the insured, management and staff...opposing parties in a lawsuit" (’038 Patent, col. 2:37-41). This could support an interpretation that excludes purely content-based violations.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement claim is based on allegations that Trellix provides software and instructions that cause its customers to directly infringe (’038 Patent, ¶17, ¶26). The contributory infringement claim alleges that the Trellix software is a material, non-staple component specifically designed for infringement and lacking substantial non-infringing uses (’038 Patent, ¶18).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant was "made aware of the ‘038 patent," refused to cease its allegedly infringing conduct, and has "no good faith defense," which forms the basis for a claim of willful infringement and a request for enhanced damages (Compl. ¶29).

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

• A central issue will be one of structural equivalence: for the purposes of means-plus-function analysis, are the software architectures and algorithms of the accused Trellix DLP products structurally equivalent to the specific flowcharts and database schemas disclosed in the '038 patent’s specification?
• A key question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "conflicting recipient," which is rooted in the patent’s context of relational conflicts between individuals or entities, be construed to cover the broader "policy violations" enforced by the accused general-purpose Data Loss Prevention product, which may be based on content alone?
• Finally, an underlying evidentiary question will be one of substantial non-infringing use: can the accused Trellix DLP products, alleged to be incapable of substantial non-infringing use, be shown to have commercially significant applications that fall outside the scope of the patent's claims, which would challenge the contributory infringement allegation?