DCT
2:25-cv-00005
EasyWeb Innovations LLC v. Builtwith Pty Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Easyweb Innovations LLC (New York)
- Defendant: Builtwith Pty Ltd (Australia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hecht Partners LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00005, E.D. Tex., 01/03/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts systematic business in the district, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and markets and sells its services to customers in Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website platform infringes a patent related to user-customizable computer access security by allowing individual users to select between different authentication methods.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns user authentication systems, a foundational technology for securing access to online accounts and services.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during prosecution, the patent-in-suit overcame a patent eligibility rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The applicant successfully argued that the claims represented a concrete improvement in computer functionality over the then-conventional, one-size-fits-all security systems, rather than being directed to an abstract idea.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-03-11 | '905 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-03-09 | Date of BuiltWith website capture by Internet Archive |
| 2018-10-30 | '905 Patent Issue Date |
| Beginning at least as early as 2019 | Alleged infringement of the '905 Patent by Accused Products begins |
| 2025-01-03 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,114,905, "Individual User Selectable Multi-Level Authorization Method for Accessing a Computer System," issued October 30, 2018.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, computer security systems were typically rigid and administered "system-wide," forcing all users of a single system to use the same, non-customizable security method (Compl. ¶16). Users could not choose to trade convenience for stronger security, or vice versa.
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a computer system that offers a plurality of security schemes and allows each user to independently select and store a preference for the scheme they wish to use. The system is designed so that at least one available scheme is more secure (e.g., requires more identification information) than another, giving users control over their own security level ('905 Patent, Abstract; col. 45:10-40). The user's choice is then stored in their specific account and used for subsequent authorizations ('905 Patent, col. 45:34-36).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide user-centric flexibility in computer security, a departure from the one-size-fits-all approach common in the late 1990s (Compl. ¶17).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 9, as well as dependent claims 2-8 and 10-20 (Compl. ¶36).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method) includes the essential elements of:
- Prompting a particular user to select a security scheme from a plurality of schemes, where a first scheme requires a specific number of identification information and a second scheme requires additional identification information.
- Storing the user's selection as a preference in the user's storage area.
- Authorizing access to the computer system only when the user satisfies the requirements of their selected scheme.
- Independent Claim 9 (Method) includes the essential elements of:
- Prompting a first user to select and store a first security scheme.
- Prompting a second user to select and store a second security scheme.
- The first and second security schemes require a different number of identification information to be satisfied.
- Authorizing the first or second user based on their respectively selected and satisfied scheme.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The Accused Products are identified as "all versions and variants of the BuiltWith's Website" and platform, which provide website profiling services (Compl. ¶¶25-26).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the BuiltWith platform allows each user to customize their account's security scheme (Compl. ¶26). Specifically, a user can choose between a "standard email and password security scheme" (which the complaint equates to two-step verification being disabled) and a "two-factor security scheme" that requires an additional piece of identification information for access (Compl. ¶¶26, 30-31). The complaint alleges this user-specific choice is stored as a preference for that user's account (Compl. ¶29). Visual evidence from a 2016 BuiltWith blog post announces the availability of two-factor authentication for user accounts (Compl. p. 10). A separate knowledge base article provides users with instructions on how to enable the feature (Compl. p. 11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'905 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompting the particular user of the computer system for a selection of a particular security scheme from among the plurality of security schemes... | The BuiltWith platform prompts users to select a security scheme via a security settings interface, offering a choice between standard login and 2FA (Compl. p. 11). | ¶28 | col. 19:46-54 |
| wherein a first of the plurality of security schemes requires a specific number of identification information to authorize the particular user... | The first security scheme (2FA disabled) requires two pieces of identification: an email address and a password. | ¶30 | col. 45:26-34 |
| and a second of the plurality of security schemes requires additional identification information beyond that of the first scheme to authorize the particular user; | The second security scheme (2FA enabled) requires the same two pieces of identification plus a third piece: the two-factor authentication code. | ¶31 | col. 45:26-34 |
| storing the selection as a preference in the particular user's storage area; | The user's choice to enable or disable 2FA is allegedly stored in the "user's storage area" and used for subsequent logins. | ¶29, ¶32 | col. 45:34-36 |
| and thereafter authorizing the particular user to access the computer system when the selected security scheme of the particular user is satisfied. | After the user makes a selection, future access is governed by that choice; if 2FA is enabled, the user must provide the 2FA code to access the system, and if not, only the email and password are required. | ¶33 | col. 45:37-40 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether the claims of the ’905 Patent, which has a 1999 priority date and a specification focused on technologies of that era (e.g., fax, dial-up), can be construed to cover modern web-based two-factor authentication systems.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the user's security choice is stored in a "user's storage area" (Compl. ¶29). A key factual question will be what evidence supports this specific architectural limitation in the Accused Products, as opposed to, for example, a global user database where a flag in a user's record indicates their 2FA status.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "security scheme"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is fundamental to the infringement case. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether the patent can read on authentication technologies like 2FA, which were not widespread in 1999. The complaint’s extensive discussion of the patent’s prosecution history and its alleged improvement over prior art suggests Plaintiff will argue for a broad construction covering any method of user-selectable authentication levels (Compl. ¶¶14-17).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined or limited in the claims themselves. The patent abstract describes the concept generally as allowing users to select a scheme based on a "personal preferred balance between convenience and security" (’905 Patent, Abstract), language which may support a broad, technology-agnostic reading.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description is heavily focused on technologies from the late 1990s, such as publishing messages via fax machine, telephone, and early email systems (’905 Patent, FIG. 1; col. 10:25-34). A party could argue that the meaning of "security scheme" is implicitly limited to the types of access control relevant to those disclosed embodiments.
The Term: "user's storage area"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the claims require the user's selection to be stored in this specific location. The infringement analysis will depend on whether Defendant's method of storing a user's 2FA preference (e.g., as a field in a user database) meets this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be interpreted to mean any data storage location logically associated with a particular user's account, including a record or row in a centralized database.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict "STORAGE" as a distinct block component of the system architecture (’905 Patent, FIG. 13, item 1350), which could support an argument that the term requires a more defined or partitioned data structure than a simple flag in a database table.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant provides instructions and documentation, such as online knowledge base articles, that guide users on how to use the allegedly infringing features (e.g., enabling 2FA) (Compl. ¶40). The complaint alleges contributory infringement by stating the infringing components have no substantial non-infringing uses and are especially made or adapted for infringement (Compl. ¶41).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant acts with "knowledge of the 905 Patent and with the intent, or willful blindness" that its actions cause infringement, which forms the basis for a willfulness claim (Compl. ¶41). The complaint does not specify whether this alleged knowledge is pre- or post-suit.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of temporal and technological scope: Can the claims, which rely on a 1999 priority date and describe contemporaneous technology, be construed to cover modern, web-native security protocols like two-factor authentication? The patent’s prosecution history, where the applicant overcame a § 101 rejection, will be a significant factor in this analysis.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural correspondence: Does the complaint provide sufficient evidence that the Accused Products' method of saving a user's 2FA setting—likely a field in a database record—constitutes "storing the selection as a preference in the particular user's storage area" as that term is used and described in the ’905 Patent?