AttestWave LLC v. BlackBerry Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: AttestWave LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Blackberry Limited (Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00929, E.D. Tex., 11/13/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and has committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unnamed products and services infringe a patent related to methods for ensuring trusted operation of software in a computer network.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of verifying that software on a user's device is operating correctly and has not been tampered with, a critical issue for network security and quality-of-service management.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,895,643 - Secure logic interlocking

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,895,643, titled “Secure logic interlocking,” issued on February 22, 2011.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In traditional TCP/IP networks, users have access to the software on their own devices and can modify it. This creates a risk that users might misuse network resources or circumvent security protocols, as the network has no inherent way to trust that the user's software is behaving as intended. (’643 Patent, col. 2:30-38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to create "trusted flows" of communication by "interlocking" a standard operational program (e.g., a TCP protocol stack) with a cryptographic signal-generating program. This creates a single, combined software module that, when executed, produces unpredictable security signals (or "tags") that are attached to data packets. A corresponding "checker" on the network, such as a firewall, which knows the secret for generating the signals, can then validate the tags to confirm the user's software has not been tampered with. (’643 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1; col. 2:7-19).
• Technical Importance: This method provides a mechanism for network operators to differentiate between "trusted" and "untrusted" traffic, enabling them to grant premium service to validated users while potentially protecting the network from misbehaving clients or denial-of-service attacks. (’643 Patent, col. 2:63-66).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify any specific asserted claims, instead referring generally to the "Exemplary '643 Patent Claims" and incorporating by reference an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). As a representative example, independent claim 1 is a system claim directed to:
  • An "integrated combination of computer software program" that includes both a "software application logic module" and an "operation assurance logic module."
  • These modules operate together to perform computing functions while concurrently generating "unique security tags" from the assurance module.
  • A controller executes this "concurrent executed integrated combination."
  • The unique security tags are generated only when the integrated program is executed without being tampered with.
  • An "associated operational checking logic" validates the program's integrity by checking the unique security tags.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," which suggests the right to assert dependent claims is preserved (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products or services. It refers only in general terms to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and "numerous other devices that infringe" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no specific allegations regarding the technical functionality or market position of any accused Blackberry product.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an unattached "Exhibit 2" to support its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶16-17). As this exhibit was not provided, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the complaint alone. The complaint’s narrative theory is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products... practice the technology claimed by the '643 Patent" and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute will concern whether any Blackberry product or service contains an "integrated combination" of software as claimed. The analysis will question if Blackberry's security architecture involves interlocking a client-side application with a distinct "operation assurance logic module" to generate security tags, or if it uses a different security model.
• Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question is whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that any accused Blackberry functionality is truly "interlocked" in the manner required by the patent—that is, in a way that makes it "impossible... to execute parts of the combined functionality separately" (’643 Patent, col. 4:37-40). This will likely require significant evidence obtained through discovery, such as source code analysis, to show that a client-side function generates a specific signal that is then validated by a corresponding "operational checking logic" within Blackberry's network infrastructure.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"integrated combination of computer software program"

Context and Importance

This term is foundational to the claimed invention. Its construction will determine whether a loose bundling of separate software components can infringe, or if a single, inseparable, and cryptographically bound program is required. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears central to distinguishing the invention from prior art systems that may have used separate security and application programs.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes "taking logic modules (programs and data) with known functionality and transforming them into a hidden program by integrating modules to execute together," which could suggest that originally separate modules are being combined. (’643 Patent, Abstract).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly emphasizes making the software "inseparable," "unreadable," and "non-modifiable" through techniques like obfuscation to create an "interlocking of the program sub-tasks in a manner which is hard to reverse engineer." (’643 Patent, col. 4:22-24, col. 5:48-51). This suggests a requirement for a much tighter, cryptographically-enforced integration, not just a simple combination.

"operational checking logic"

Context and Importance

This term defines the network-side component that validates the client's behavior. The scope of this term will determine what kind of network element (e.g., a generic firewall vs. a purpose-built server) could be found to infringe.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states this logic can be part of a "firewall, a gateway, a router," or other common network devices, potentially supporting a construction that covers devices with general security functions. (’643 Patent, col. 20:11-12).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent clarifies that this logic must be able to "check the validity of the pseudo random sequence of security signals" and that "Only the network interface knows how the pseudo random sequence of security signals were generated," implying a specific, coordinated function that mirrors the generation logic on the client side, rather than a generic filtering rule. (’643 Patent, col. 6:26-32).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end-users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge. Instead, it asserts that the filing of the complaint provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶13). This forms the basis for an allegation of post-filing induced infringement and creates a basis for a potential future claim of willful infringement for any continuing infringing activity (Compl. ¶15).

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

• A central issue will be one of evidence and specificity: Given the complaint’s failure to identify any accused products or provide infringement contentions, a primary question is whether Plaintiff can, through discovery, produce specific evidence that a Blackberry product actually contains the "interlocked" software architecture described in the ’643 Patent.
• A key legal battle will be over claim scope: The case will likely turn on the construction of "integrated combination." Resolution of this issue—whether it requires a single, obfuscated, and inseparable software executable or allows for a looser collection of cooperating programs—will be critical in determining the patent's reach and the viability of the infringement claims.