Touchpoint Projection Innovations LLC v. Check Point Software Tech Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Touchpoint Projections Innovations, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00981, N.D. Tex., 11/27/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a "regular, physical, continuous, and established place of business" in the district and has committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Remote Browser Isolation security solution infringes a patent related to methods for securely rendering remote web content.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves remote browser isolation, a cybersecurity method that processes potentially malicious web content on a remote server and delivers a safe, interactive version to the end-user's device to prevent malware infections.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the patent-in-suit was originally assigned by its inventors to Everis, Inc., which subsequently assigned its entire right, title, and interest to the Plaintiff, Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,118,712 - "NETWORK COMMUNICATION SYSTEM WITH IMPROVED SECURITY," issued August 25, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the increased risk of malware infections that arise from "surfing the web" (’712 Patent, col. 1:17-22). As web browsers become more robust and capable of handling complex data and executable code, they also become more vulnerable to sophisticated "hacking" practices that deliver malware, even from visiting legitimate but compromised websites ('712 Patent, col. 1:31-36, 1:53-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention interposes a "software rendering application," referred to as a "security module," in the communication path between a user's browser and internet data sources ('712 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This remote module intercepts web content, which may contain malware, and "renders" it into a new, safe "browser readable code set" (e.g., an XML page with CSS layers) for presentation on the user's computer ('712 Patent, Abstract). This process isolates the user's computer from direct contact with potentially malicious code while aiming to preserve the interactive functionality of the original web content ('712 Patent, col. 8:20-28, 16:26-34).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to provide security without relying on traditional signature-based malware detection, instead creating a protective barrier that neutralizes threats by transforming the web content itself before it reaches the end user's device ('712 Patent, col. 4:30-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
• Claim 1 recites a method with the following essential elements:
  • Providing a software rendering application that is remote from the user computer and in data communication with it.
  • Issuing a command from the user's browser intended for an internet data source.
  • Intercepting and proxying the command via the remote software rendering application.
  • Receiving, at the rendering application, responsive data from the internet data source that comprises "original user functionality."
  • 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 browser readable code set layer" containing elements like a link, fillable field, video, or audio, which includes the "original user functionality."
  • Sending the resulting browser readable code set to the user's browser software.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "Remote Browser Isolation (RBI)" web security solution and the associated services (Compl. ¶30).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Check Point's RBI solution is a "web security solution, utilized to protect users from internet-borne threats" (Compl. ¶30).
• Its alleged technical operation involves a "cloud-hosted browser, running in a sandboxed environment, to render the internet content requested by the user, which is further delivered to the user" (Compl. ¶30). This process is alleged to prevent malware embedded in web pages from reaching the user’s device (Compl. ¶30). The complaint includes a Google Maps screenshot showing Defendant's physical office in Irving, Texas, to establish a basis for venue where these infringing activities are alleged to occur (Compl. ¶10; Figure 1). The complaint does not provide further technical details on the product's operation.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes at least Claim 1 of the ’712 Patent, stating that a claim chart is attached as Exhibit B to demonstrate how each element is practiced (Compl. ¶35, ¶37). However, Exhibit B was not filed with the complaint. The following table summarizes the infringement theory based on the narrative allegations present in the complaint body.

’712 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary factual question will be whether Check Point’s RBI technology, described as utilizing a "cloud-hosted browser," actually performs the specific steps of "rendering...into an interactive pixilated image as a layer" and "overlaying...with a secure browser readable code set layer" as required by Claim 1. The complaint’s general description does not specify the technical format of the data delivered to the end-user.
  • Scope Questions: The case may turn on how broadly key terms are construed. For instance, does the accused product’s method of delivering sanitized web content to a user meet the specific definition of creating a "pixilated image" that is then overlaid with a "secure browser readable code set layer"?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "automatically rendering...all received responsive data into an interactive pixilated image as a layer"

• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the claimed invention, describing the specific mechanism for neutralizing malware. The dispute will likely center on whether Defendant’s rendering process creates what can be legally defined as a "pixilated image as a layer." Practitioners may focus on this term because modern browser isolation techniques can use various technologies (e.g., streaming DOM information, vector graphics) that may not be considered a "pixilated image" in a literal sense.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification suggests the goal is to create a "functional facsimile" of the original content, and the description of "render and/or recontainerize" is broad, defined as processing data to a presentable state and then re-encapsulating it ('712 Patent, col. 7:8-14, col. 14:62-15:2). This could support an interpretation covering various forms of content transformation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language explicitly uses the term "pixilated image," which is repeatedly described in the specification as a "pixelated bitmap" or a compressed image file like a "jpg image file" ('712 Patent, col. 8:5-12). This could support a narrower construction limited to raster image-based rendering, potentially excluding other isolation techniques.

• The Term: "remote from the user computer"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the system architecture. While the accused "cloud-hosted" service appears to meet this limitation on its face, disputes over the precise meaning of "remote" can arise. Practitioners may focus on this term to probe for any architectural nuances of the accused system that might place some rendering functions closer to the user than the patent contemplates.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s own definition section states "Remote: physically separate, but could be as close as in the same room" ('712 Patent, col. 14:27-29). This provides strong support for a broad definition that does not require significant physical or network distance.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The overall context of the invention, which interposes a security module between the user and the wider "internet," and the embodiment shown in Figure 1, which depicts the security module as a distinct network node separate from the user computers and servers, could suggest an intended separation greater than simply being off the user's local machine ('712 Patent, Fig. 1).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by "providing instructions to consumer end-users" to use the accused RBI service in an infringing manner and contributes to infringement by "supplying components" for practicing the claimed method (Compl. ¶48). The complaint further alleges Defendant acts with "knowledge of, and the specific intent to cause, the acts of direct infringement" by its users (Compl. ¶49).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’712 Patent, with knowledge dating from "at least as of the service of the present complaint" (Compl. ¶34). The complaint further alleges that "after becoming aware of its indirect infringement... Defendant has made no effort to alter its services or otherwise attempt to design around the claims," which it characterizes as "blatant and egregious disregard" for Plaintiff’s rights (Compl. ¶52). This frames a theory of post-suit willfulness.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope and technical proof: Can the term "interactive pixilated image as a layer," as described in the patent, be construed to cover the specific output of Check Point’s "cloud-hosted browser" technology? Plaintiff will need to provide evidence, which is currently absent from the complaint, demonstrating that the accused RBI service technically operates by creating a "pixilated image" and "overlaying" it in the manner required by Claim 1.
• A central legal and factual question will be one of infringement mapping: Given the complaint’s reliance on a missing exhibit, a key focus of discovery and litigation will be establishing whether the accused RBI service, in its normal operation, practices every element of the asserted claims. The defense may argue that its technology, while achieving a similar security goal, follows a fundamentally different, non-infringing technical process.