DCT
2:24-cv-00980
Touchpoint Projection Innovations LLC v. Broadcom Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Touchpoint Projections Innovations, LLC (Wyoming)
- Defendant: Broadcom Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00980, E.D. Tex., 11/27/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular, physical, and established place of business in Plano, Texas, and has committed acts of infringement within the district. The complaint supports this allegation with a screenshot from Defendant's corporate website showing the Plano, TX address.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Symantec Web Isolation, a Remote Browser Isolation service, infringes a patent related to securely rendering remote web content to protect end-users from malware.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue is in the field of cybersecurity, specifically remote browser isolation (RBI), where potentially malicious web content is executed in a remote, isolated environment and a safe visual stream is sent to the end-user, preventing malicious code from reaching the user's device.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent was examined by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which considered numerous prior art references before allowing the claims, a fact that may be used to support the patent's presumption of validity. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-12-30 | '712 Patent Priority Date |
| 2015-08-25 | '712 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-11-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,118,712 - "NETWORK COMMUNICATION SYSTEM WITH IMPROVED SECURITY"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the risk of receiving malware through normal internet browsing, where increasingly robust browsers can execute many types of potentially malicious code (’712 Patent, col. 1:24-36). It notes that conventional anti-virus software is not always sufficient and that sophisticated hacks can evade detection (’712 Patent, col. 4:1-6).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "security module" that is remote from the user's computer and acts as an intermediary for all web traffic (’712 Patent, Fig. 1). This module intercepts potentially unsafe web content, "renders" it into a safe format such as a "pixilated image," and then sends this safe, reconstructed content to the user's browser (’712 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:40-57). This process is intended to strip out malicious code while preserving user functionality by overlaying interactive elements like links and forms onto the safe image layer (’712 Patent, col. 16:26-46).
- Technical Importance: This architectural approach sought to provide "safe web browsing" by isolating the end-user's machine from direct contact with untrusted web code, supporting a "trusted thin client" model where the user's device has reduced vulnerability (’712 Patent, col. 4:26-34).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶36).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Providing a software rendering application that is remote from the user computer.
- Intercepting and proxying a command from the user's browser.
- Receiving responsive data from the internet.
- Automatically rendering all received responsive data into an "interactive pixilated image as a layer" such that "no original browser executable code will be executed at the user computer."
- Overlaying the pixilated image data with a secure layer containing interactive elements (e.g., a link, form field, video, or audio).
- Sending the resulting secure browser readable code set to the user's browser.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Defendant's "Symantec Web Isolation, a Remote Browser Isolation (RBI) solution" and associated services (Compl. ¶30).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentality is a service designed to mitigate online threats from web browsing (Compl. ¶30). The complaint describes the service as executing web sessions "in a disposable cloud container, away from the user," which ensures that "no original code, which may contain malicious content, reaches the end user's device." The system then "renders the web content to the user on their device" (Compl. ¶30). The complaint includes a screenshot from Broadcom's corporate website listing a physical office in Plano, Texas, to support its venue allegations (Compl. Figure 1, p. 3).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement of at least Claim 1 and incorporates by reference an unprovided claim chart (Exhibit B) to detail its theory (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 38). The narrative allegations in the complaint suggest the following mapping.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for connecting user browser software... comprising the steps of: providing a software rendering application that is: (i) remote from the user computer... | The Symantec Web Isolation service allegedly executes web sessions in a "disposable cloud container, away from the user." | ¶30 | col. 16:11-14 |
| automatically rendering, by the software rendering application, all received responsive data into an interactive pixilated image as a layer... such that no original browser executable code will be executed at the user computer; | The service allegedly "renders the web content to the user on their device," which ensures that "no original code, which may contain malicious content, reaches the end user's device." | ¶30 | col. 16:21-28 |
| overlaying, by the software rendering application, the pixilated image data with a secure browser readable code set layer comprising at least one of a link, a fillable user input data field, an embedded video, or an embedded audio... | The complaint alleges the service performs the method of web browsing, which inherently includes rendering interactive web pages containing links, forms, and other media. | ¶30 | col. 16:29-37 |
| sending the browser readable code set from the software rendering application to the user browser software. | The accused service allegedly "renders the web content to the user on their device." | ¶30 | col. 16:38-40 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint's infringement theory relies on the output of the Symantec Web Isolation service meeting the definition of an "interactive pixilated image as a layer." A central dispute may be whether modern RBI streaming techniques, which may differ from the "pixilated image" described in the 2010-era patent, fall within the scope of this term.
- Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires rendering "all received responsive data" such that "no original browser executable code" is executed by the user. The absolute nature of these limitations raises factual questions. The court may need to determine if the accused service renders every piece of data or if certain elements are passed through, and whether any original code, even if deemed safe or non-functional, is executed on the user's device. The complaint does not provide specific evidence on how the accused service handles the "overlaying" of interactive elements.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "interactive pixilated image as a layer"
Context and Importance: This term is the core of the claimed invention, defining the nature of the "safe" content delivered to the user. The outcome of the infringement analysis will heavily depend on its construction and whether Broadcom's modern RBI data stream is properly characterized as such.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the rendered output in functional terms, for example, as a "pixelated bitmap of a picture of the text" that can be compressed into a "jpg image file," suggesting the form is less important than the function of removing active code (’712 Patent, col. 8:5-13).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim recites a two-part structure: a "pixilated image as a layer" that is then "overlaying... with a secure browser readable code set layer" containing interactive elements. This could support an interpretation that the "pixilated image" is a static, non-interactive base layer, which a defendant might argue is technologically distinct from modern, dynamic RBI streams.
The Term: "no original browser executable code"
Context and Importance: This negative limitation is an absolute requirement and central to the patent's security premise. Infringement will depend on whether the accused service meets this "zero-code" standard.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (for Plaintiff): The patent’s objective is to protect the user computer from all malware by preventing it from processing complex, executable code, instead receiving only "frames" or "visual displays" (’712 Patent, col. 2:26-36). This supports a plain-meaning interpretation where "no" means zero.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (for Defendant): A defendant may argue that the term "executable code" is limited to code that poses a security threat, and that the accused service might execute certain non-threatening or sanitized "original" scripts (e.g., for layout) on the client side without violating the spirit of the invention. The patent’s own definition of "malware" is tied to "secretly access a computer system without the user's informed consent" (’712 Patent, col. 15:13-16), potentially narrowing what kind of "executable code" is prohibited.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by "aiding and abetting consumer end-users" and "providing instructions" for them to use the accused services in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶48).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has knowledge of its infringement at least as of the date the complaint was served (Compl. ¶34). It further alleges that despite this knowledge, Defendant continues its infringing conduct in "blatant and egregious disregard for Touchpoint's patent rights," which could form the basis for post-filing willfulness and enhanced damages (Compl. ¶52).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "interactive pixilated image as a layer," which is described in the context of 2010-era technology, be construed to cover the data streams generated by Broadcom's modern Remote Browser Isolation service? The case may turn on whether the accused technology is merely a new name for an old process or a fundamentally different technical solution.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical compliance: Can Plaintiff prove, as a factual matter, that the accused Symantec service meets the absolute requirements of Claim 1—specifically, that it renders "all" responsive data and allows "no original browser executable code" to run on the user's computer? Any evidence of pass-through data or code execution could present a significant challenge to the literal infringement theory.