Secure Matrix LLC v. Men's Wearhouse LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Secure Matrix LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: The Men's Wearhouse, LLC (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00013, E.D. Tex., 01/06/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has an established place of business in the District and has committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to systems and methods for user authentication and verification, typically involving a user's mobile device interacting with another computer system.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns secure, multi-factor authentication, a critical component of e-commerce and secure online services for verifying user identity and authorizing transactions.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,677,116, "Systems and methods for authentication and verification," issued on March 18, 2014. (Compl. ¶8-9; ’116 Patent, cover).

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a "growing need to authenticate users trying to access a secured internet portal...or a real-world secured device" and a corresponding need for a "secure and fast online electronic payment capability." (’116 Patent, col. 1:19-29).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a multi-device authentication method where a primary computer (e.g., a web server) provides a "reusable identifier" (such as in a QR code) for a secured transaction or login. A user employs a separate electronic device (e.g., a smartphone) to capture this identifier and transmit it, along with user-specific verification information, to a distinct verification server. This server evaluates whether the user is authorized and, if so, transmits an authorization signal to complete the interaction. (’116 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:30-49). This process is illustrated in system diagrams like Figure 2. (’116 Patent, Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: The use of a "reusable identifier" that does not contain sensitive, user-specific or transaction-specific information is described as an advantage, potentially making the system faster, more scalable, and more secure than systems requiring the generation of complex, one-time-use identifiers for each transaction. (’116 Patent, col. 6:35-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them, instead referencing "Exemplary '116 Patent Claims" in an external exhibit not attached to the public filing. (Compl. ¶11). Independent Claim 1 is representative of the patented method.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method) Elements:
  • Using a computer system to receive a first signal from a computer providing a secured capability, the signal comprising a "reusable identifier" assigned 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, based on the first and second signals, whether the user is authorized.
  • In response to an authorization, transmitting a third signal with authorization information to the electronic device and/or the computer. (’116 Patent, col. 33:18-41).
• The complaint’s reference to "exemplary claims" suggests it reserves the right to assert other independent claims (e.g., system claim 11) and various dependent claims. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name a specific accused product, service, or method. It refers generally to "Defendant products" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in charts within an un-provided "Exhibit 2." (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context. It makes only general allegations that Defendant has made, used, offered to sell, sold, and/or imported infringing products. (Compl. ¶11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts provided as Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶16-17). As this exhibit was not included with the complaint, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the available document. The complaint’s narrative theory is that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’116 Patent and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: A primary question will be what evidence Plaintiff proffers to demonstrate that any of Defendant's systems—presumably related to its e-commerce website or retail operations—perform the specific steps of the asserted claims. The absence of this information in the complaint itself shifts the focus to future discovery and disclosures.
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question, once an instrumentality is identified, will be whether it actually uses a "reusable identifier" that is separate from user verification data, as taught by the patent. The analysis will likely focus on how Defendant's system generates, transmits, and validates authentication tokens. For instance, does the accused system's process for generating a QR code or similar token meet the specific limitations of a "reusable identifier" as defined in the patent?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "reusable identifier" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the claimed invention. The patent distinguishes this concept from conventional "one-time-use" or "unique" identifiers. (’116 Patent, col. 9:6-21). Whether the identifier in Defendant’s system is "reusable" in the manner claimed will be a central issue of the infringement analysis.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is facially broad. The patent states the identifier "can be used more than once" and is "not unique to one particular user or transaction." (’116 Patent, col. 9:8-11). This language could support a construction that covers any identifier not strictly limited to a single use.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific context, stating the identifier "does not contain user-specific or transaction-specific information" and can be reused for "multiple users and multiple transactions." (’116 Patent, col. 9:11-14). The patent also describes specific embodiments where a list of predefined identifiers is used sequentially in a "round robin" fashion, which could be argued to narrow the term’s scope to identifiers that are pre-generated and recycled. (’116 Patent, col. 9:22-50).

• The Term: "user verification information" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The nature of this information, which is transmitted separately from the "reusable identifier", is critical to the claimed two-part authentication structure. Practitioners may focus on this term because the alleged infringement will depend on showing that the accused system transmits a data element that meets this definition.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself suggests any information used to verify a user's identity could suffice.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a list of examples, including information "specific to the user (e.g., the user's first name, family name, email address, phone number)" and information "specific to the first electronic device (e.g., a device identification character string, hardware-specific information)." (’116 Patent, col. 12:5-14). A party could argue the term is limited to these enumerated types of data.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to use the accused products in a manner that directly infringes the ’116 Patent. (Compl. ¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had "actual knowledge" of the ’116 Patent at least since the service of the complaint and its associated claim charts. (Compl. ¶13, ¶15). This frames the willfulness allegation as being based on post-suit conduct.

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

1. A central issue will be one of claim construction and technical scope: Can the term "reusable identifier", which the patent defines as lacking user-specific data and being usable across multiple transactions, be construed to read on the authentication tokens used by Defendant’s system, the specific nature of which remains to be detailed?

2. A key evidentiary question will be dispositive: Given the complaint's reliance on an un-provided exhibit, what specific features of Defendant’s e-commerce or retail systems will Plaintiff identify in discovery, and can Plaintiff present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that these features perform each step of the asserted claims, particularly the separate transmission of a "reusable identifier" and "user verification information" to a verification server for evaluation?