Secure Matrix LLC v. Brookshire Grocery Company

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Secure Matrix LLC (DE)
  • Defendant: Brookshire Grocery Company (TX)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-01080, E.D. Tex., 04/25/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the district and committing acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s user authentication systems infringe a patent related to a multi-factor authentication method using time-limited, reusable identifiers.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses security for online transactions and data access, a critical field for e-commerce, online banking, and other secure web services.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is a First Amended Complaint, superseding an Original Complaint filed on December 30, 2024. Plaintiff alleges that service of the Original Complaint provides Defendant with actual knowledge of the alleged infringement, forming a basis for willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,677,116 - Systems and methods for authentication and verification

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,677,116 (“the ’116 Patent”), issued March 18, 2014.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to remedy deficiencies in conventional authentication, which relied on static, single-factor username and password combinations that were vulnerable to compromise and required users to manage numerous, complex passwords for different services (Compl. ¶¶11-12; ’116 Patent, col. 32:63-33:9).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a multi-signal authentication method. A verification system receives a first signal containing a "reusable identifier" from the service the user is trying to access (e.g., a website's server). It then receives a second signal containing a copy of that same identifier plus "user verification information" from the user’s separate electronic device (e.g., a smartphone) (’116 Patent, Abstract). A processor evaluates both signals to authorize the interaction, with the identifier being valid only for a "finite period of time" to enhance security (Compl. ¶¶13-14, 22). This process is depicted in the patent’s figures, such as Figure 2, which illustrates a user browser, mobile device, web server, and verification server interacting via separate data flows (’116 Patent, Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: The patent asserts this approach provides "a level of safety over a million times greater than systems that utilize just a login and password" by creating a multi-factor system that does not rely on static credentials alone (’116 Patent, col. 33:3-4, cited in Compl. ¶16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint focuses on independent claim 1.
• The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
  • Using a computer system to receive a first signal from the computer providing the secured capability, the signal comprising a "reusable identifier" assigned for use for a "finite period of time."
  • Using the computer system to receive a second signal from a user’s electronic device, the signal comprising a copy of the "reusable identifier" and "user verification information."
  • Using a processor to evaluate authorization based on the first and second signals.
  • Transmitting a third signal with authorization information in response to a successful evaluation.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶25).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" detailed in a non-proffered "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶¶25, 30-31). Given the defendant is a grocery company, the accused instrumentalities are likely its customer-facing website, mobile application, and the associated backend systems that provide for user login and account authentication.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '116 Patent" and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶30). However, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality or operation.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an exhibit that was not provided (Compl. ¶31). The narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant's authentication systems perform the steps of the asserted method claims. The core of the allegation is that Defendant’s systems use a two-channel authentication flow: one signal is generated by Defendant’s servers (the "computer providing the secured capability") and a second, correlating signal is sent from the end-user's device (e.g., a smartphone). A processor then allegedly evaluates these two signals to grant access (Compl. ¶22).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary factual question will be whether Defendant’s authentication architecture actually mirrors the two-signal pathway required by Claim 1. What evidence demonstrates that a "reusable identifier" is sent from Defendant’s main server to a separate verification system, and that a copy of that same identifier is separately sent from the user's device for comparison? The complaint’s emphasis on the "finite period of time" suggests that the lifecycle and temporal validity of any tokens used in Defendant's system will be a key area of dispute (Compl. ¶¶20-21).
  • Scope Questions: The method of Claim 1 is performed by a "computer system." The parties may dispute whether the accused "computer system" is operated entirely by Defendant or involves third-party authentication services, which could raise questions regarding divided infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "reusable identifier"

• Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of the asserted claims. Its construction will determine whether the patent covers a broad of modern authentication tokens or is limited to the specific embodiments described. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope is central to the infringement analysis.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the identifier "does not contain user-specific or interaction-specific information," suggesting it could be a generic, non-unique token used to link an authentication session across two channels (’116 Patent, col. 7:40-42).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a "round robin usage" of identifiers from a predefined list (’116 Patent, col. 9:40-54). A defendant may argue that "reusable" is not merely "usable more than once" but is limited to this specific scheme of cycling through a list of identifiers.

• The Term: "assigned for use by the secured capability for a finite period of time"

• Context and Importance: The complaint highlights this limitation as a key inventive concept for enhancing security (Compl. ¶¶20-21). The dispute will concern what technical mechanisms satisfy the "finite period" requirement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides broad examples of the time period, including "one or more minutes, one or more hours, one or more days," which could support construing the term to cover nearly any form of session timeout (’116 Patent, col. 9:42-44).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes specific implementations, such as comparing the time differential between the receipt of the two signals or deleting an identifier’s record after a period has elapsed to enable its reuse (’116 Patent, col. 13:27-45). A defendant could argue these specific mechanisms define and limit the scope of the term.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct customers on how to use the accused systems in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶28-29).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringement after receiving "actual knowledge" of the ’116 Patent via service of the Original Complaint on December 30, 2024 (Compl. ¶¶27-28).

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

1. A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural correspondence: does the accused authentication system used by Brookshire Grocery Company actually employ the specific two-signal, two-device data flow recited in Claim 1, or does its operation diverge in a way that avoids infringement?
2. The case will likely turn on a core issue of claim scope: can the term "reusable identifier... assigned for use... for a finite period of time" be broadly construed to cover conventional, time-limited session tokens, or will the court limit its meaning to the more specific "round robin" or time-differential comparison embodiments described in the patent's specification?