Touchpoint Projection Innovations LLC v. Zscaler Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Zscaler, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00982, E.D. Tex., 11/27/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established physical place of business in the district and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s remote browser isolation products and services infringe a patent related to securing network communications by remotely rendering web content.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue is remote browser isolation (RBI), a cybersecurity method that executes web browsing activity in a remote, isolated environment to protect end-user devices from malware.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during prosecution, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office examiner considered three U.S. patents and twenty-nine published U.S. patent applications as relevant prior art before allowing the claims of the patent-in-suit to issue.

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 risk of malware being delivered to a user's computer through increasingly sophisticated web browsers that can execute many types of code. Traditional anti-virus software may be insufficient to protect against sophisticated hacks that can evade detection (’712 Patent, col. 1:24-36; col. 1:64-col. 2:4).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a security module that is interposed between the end-user's computer and the internet (’712 Patent, Fig. 1). This module intercepts potentially malicious web content, "renders" it into a safe format (such as a "pixilated image"), and then sends this "sanitized" version to the user's browser. The sanitized version can still be interactive, for example by overlaying the image with secure layers containing links or video, thereby preserving user functionality while eliminating the underlying malicious code (’712 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:40-57).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to isolate the user's device from direct contact with potentially untrusted web code, representing a shift from detecting malware on the endpoint to preventing its arrival in an executable form (’712 Patent, col. 4:1-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶36).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • Providing a remote software rendering application.
  • Issuing a command from the user browser intended for an internet data source.
  • Intercepting and proxying the command via the rendering application.
  • Receiving responsive data (containing original user functionality) from the data source.
  • 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" comprising interactive elements (link, fillable field, video, or audio) that includes the original user functionality.
  • Sending the combined browser readable code set to the user browser.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶35).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange platform, which includes Remote Browsing Isolation (RBI) functionality (collectively, the "Accused Instrumentalities") (Compl. ¶30).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentalities are a cloud-native cybersecurity platform that "neutralizes online threats by hosting users' web browsing sessions on a remote server instead of the user's endpoint device" (Compl. ¶30).
• According to the complaint, the user's endpoint device receives a "pixel-based stream of a webpage or application and not the active content" (Compl. ¶30). This process is alleged to perform the method for connecting the user's browser to the internet via the remote server (Compl. ¶30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart, designated as Exhibit B, to detail its infringement allegations against Claim 1 of the ’712 patent (Compl. ¶35, 38). This exhibit was not provided with the complaint.

The narrative infringement theory alleges that Zscaler's RBI technology practices the claimed method (Compl. ¶30, 37). The complaint alleges that by hosting browsing sessions remotely and streaming a pixel-based representation to the user, Zscaler's system performs the claimed steps of intercepting web traffic, rendering it in a remote environment to neutralize threats, and sending a secure, interactive representation to the user's browser (Compl. ¶30). The allegation is that this "pixel-based stream" constitutes the "interactive pixilated image" and that the functionality allowing user interaction with the stream constitutes the "secure browser readable code set layer" required by the claim (Compl. ¶30, 37).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the term "interactive pixilated image as a layer," as described in the patent, can be construed to read on the "pixel-based stream" allegedly generated by the accused Zscaler product. The patent describes rendering data into an image and then separately "overlaying" it with a secure layer, which suggests a two-part structure that may or may not map to a single, continuous "stream."
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify how the accused "pixel-based stream" provides the "original user functionality" of the responsive data, as required by the "overlaying" limitation of Claim 1. A key question for the court will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused product performs this specific two-part process of rendering an image and then overlaying it with a functional layer, as distinct from simply streaming an interactive video of a remote session.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "interactive pixilated image"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of the claimed invention. The infringement case may depend on whether the "pixel-based stream" from Zscaler’s product falls within this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s description of a static-like "image" could be distinguished from a dynamic "stream."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines "render and/or recontainerize" broadly to include taking data representing a presentation and processing it so it could be directly presented, suggesting the form is flexible (’712 Patent, col. 14:62-col. 15:8).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an example of a rendered base image as "basically a pixelated bitmap of a picture of the text" which is then "recontainerized as a new html page" (’712 Patent, col. 8:5-10). This could support a narrower definition requiring a discrete, file-like image rather than a continuous stream.

• The Term: "overlaying... the pixilated image data with a secure browser readable code set layer"

  • Context and Importance: This step defines how interactivity is preserved. The dispute may turn on whether Zscaler’s product performs a distinct "overlaying" step or uses an integrated process that does not separate the "image" from the "interactive layer."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires that the overlaying layer "compris[e] at least one of a link, a fillable user input data field, an embedded video, or an embedded audio," which is a broad, non-exhaustive list of interactive functions (’712 Patent, col. 16:28-31).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a "second way of rendering" as adding "layers to the rendered base image" in the form of "standard CSS layers" (’712 Patent, col. 8:51-56). This could be interpreted to require a specific technical implementation using distinct, layered web technologies, not just any method of providing interactivity.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant aids, abets, and provides instructions for its "consumer end-users" to use the Accused Instrumentalities in a manner that directly infringes the ’712 patent (Compl. ¶48-49).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful infringement." However, it alleges that Defendant has knowledge of its infringement at least as of the date of service of the complaint (Compl. ¶34) and that, despite this knowledge, Defendant "has made no effort to alter its services or otherwise attempt to design around the claims" (Compl. ¶52). These allegations may form the basis for a claim of post-filing willfulness.

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the court’s interpretation of several core technical and legal questions:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "interactive pixilated image," which is described in the patent specification with reference to static bitmaps and CSS layers, be construed to cover the "pixel-based stream" technology allegedly used by the accused product?
• A key question of technical operation will be whether the evidence shows that the accused Zscaler RBI product performs the distinct, sequential method steps of (1) rendering all responsive data into a base pixilated image layer, and then (2) "overlaying" that image with a separate interactive layer, as required by the structure of Claim 1.
• An essential evidentiary question will be what proof Plaintiff can offer to demonstrate that the accused product, described in general terms in the complaint, contains the specific software architecture and performs the particular functions recited in each element of the asserted claim.