DCT

2:25-cv-00242

Touchpoint Projection Innovations LLC v. Fortinet Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00242, E.D. Tex., 02/26/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a "regular and established physical place of business" in the district, specifically an office in Plano, Texas, and has committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s FortiIsolator remote browser isolation platform infringes a patent related to securing network communications by remotely rendering web content.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves remote browser isolation (RBI), a cybersecurity method where web browsing is executed in a remote, sandboxed environment to protect end-user devices from malware delivered via the internet.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during the patent's examination, the U.S. Patent Examiner cited three U.S. patents and twenty-nine published U.S. Patent Applications before allowing the claims, which may be relevant to future validity arguments.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-12-30 U.S. Patent No. 9,118,712 Priority Date
2015-08-25 U.S. Patent No. 9,118,712 Issues
2025-02-26 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,118,712 - NETWORK COMMUNICATION SYSTEM WITH IMPROVED SECURITY

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the risk of malware being delivered to a user's computer through normal web browsing, even from legitimate but compromised websites. (’971 Patent, col. 1:24-36). It also notes the difficulty in monitoring and controlling the web communications of specific populations, such as students or military personnel. (’971 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes interposing a "security module" between the user's computer and the internet. (’971 Patent, Fig. 1). This remote module intercepts requests from the user's browser, retrieves the requested web data, and "renders" it into a new, safe format, such as a "pixilated image" with separate layers for interactive elements like links or video. (’971 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:35-50). This "safe browser readable code set" is then sent to the user's browser, isolating the user's computer from potentially malicious code. (’971 Patent, Abstract). The system may also use disposable virtual machines to handle the rendering process, which can be "flipped" (i.e., replaced with a clean instance) to eliminate any malware encountered. (’971 Patent, col. 4:59-62; col. 11:20-34).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture aims to provide security by transforming potentially dangerous, executable web code into a non-executable visual representation before it reaches the end-user device, thereby neutralizing threats without relying on traditional signature-based malware detection. (’971 Patent, col. 4:1-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶35).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1, a method, include:
    • Providing a remote "software rendering application."
    • Issuing a command from user browser software to an internet data source.
    • Intercepting and proxying the command via the rendering application.
    • Receiving responsive data from the internet data source.
    • "Automatically rendering" all received 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 links, input fields, or embedded media.
    • Sending the combined browser readable code set to the user's browser software.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the infringement allegations are not limited to claim 1. (Compl. ¶35).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Defendant’s FortiIsolator, a remote browser isolation (RBI) platform. (Compl. ¶30).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the FortiIsolator platform "allows users to access potentially malicious content from their browsers running on the desktop or mobile device such that the content and files from the web are accessed in a remote container." (Compl. ¶30). The complaint includes a screenshot from Defendant's website listing its U.S. offices, which includes a location in Plano, Texas, asserted as the basis for venue. (Compl. ¶9, Fig. 1). The complaint asserts that FortiIsolator performs the method of connecting a user's browser to the internet via this remote container for data communication. (Compl. ¶30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in its Exhibit B, which was not publicly available at the time of this analysis. (Compl. ¶35, 37). Therefore, the infringement theory is summarized below in prose based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

The core of the infringement allegation is that the FortiIsolator platform practices the method of claim 1 of the ’971 Patent. (Compl. ¶37). The complaint alleges that FortiIsolator functions as the claimed "software rendering application" that is remote from the user computer. (Compl. ¶30). The theory suggests that when a user browses the web through FortiIsolator, the platform intercepts the web traffic, processes it in a "remote container," and delivers a sanitized version to the user's browser, thereby mapping to the claimed steps of rendering data into a "pixilated image" and overlaying it with interactive elements. (Compl. ¶30, 37). The complaint alleges direct infringement by Defendant's employees who "internally test and use" the platform. (Compl. ¶36).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: A primary question will be whether the operation of FortiIsolator's "remote container" meets the specific claim limitation of "automatically rendering ... all received responsive data into an interactive pixilated image as a layer." Discovery will likely focus on the precise data transformation process used by the accused platform and whether it creates a "pixilated image" as distinct from other remote display protocols.
  • Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether the accused functionality, which the complaint describes as accessing content in a "remote container," is equivalent to the patent’s more specific description of rendering a "pixilated image" and overlaying it with a "secure browser readable code set layer" (e.g., XML and CSS). (Compl. ¶30; ’971 Patent, col. 16:21-33).

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 describes the core technical transformation that provides the purported security benefit. The outcome of the case will likely depend on whether the FortiIsolator's method of isolating and presenting web content falls within the scope of this language. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent appears to describe a specific type of rendering, and the complaint provides limited detail on the accused product's exact mechanism.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the goal of sending a "functional facsimile" of the original content to the user, suggesting the specific implementation might not be limiting as long as the security function is achieved. (’971 Patent, col. 7:9-10). The patent also discusses various ways to handle additional data, such as video or links, which could support a view that "pixilated image" is a representative, not exhaustive, example of a rendered base layer. (’971 Patent, col. 8:19-57).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is highly specific, requiring an "interactive pixilated image as a layer." The abstract and detailed description repeatedly reference creating an "xml page with CSS layers," which could be argued to define the scope of the rendered output. (’971 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:52-57). This specificity may support a narrower construction limited to technologies that create a literal pixel-based image layer and separate interactive layers, as opposed to other forms of remote display streaming.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by "aiding and abetting consumer end-users" and "providing instructions to consumer end-users for using those components in practicing the method claimed in claim 1." (Compl. ¶48). It alleges Defendant has "knowledge of, and the specific intent to cause, the acts of direct infringement." (Compl. ¶49).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege "willful infringement." It asserts that Defendant has knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present complaint," which may support a claim for enhanced damages for any post-filing infringement but does not allege pre-suit knowledge. (Compl. ¶14, 34).

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court’s determination of the following key questions:

  1. A central issue will be one of technical mechanism: Does the FortiIsolator’s "remote container" technology operate by "automatically rendering... data into an interactive pixilated image as a layer," as required by claim 1, or does it use a different, non-infringing method of remote browser isolation and content delivery?
  2. A key question for claim construction will be one of definitional scope: How narrowly will the court define the term "interactive pixilated image"? Will it be limited to the patent’s examples of a bitmap-style image with CSS overlays, or can it be construed more broadly to encompass other modern forms of remote content streaming and reconstruction used in RBI systems?