Authentixx LLC v. 121 Media LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Authentixx LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: 121 Media, LLC (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00647, E.D. Tex., 06/19/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to methods for authenticating electronic content, such as web pages, to verify their origin.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of online fraud and phishing by providing a system to embed verifiable authenticity markers into web or email content.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit claims priority back to a 1999 provisional application. The patent document itself references an extensive history of prior litigation and patent reviews involving its parent patents, brought by predecessor-in-interest Secure Axcess LLC against numerous financial institutions, suggesting the core technology has been the subject of significant prior judicial and administrative scrutiny.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,355,863 - "System and method for authenticating electronic content," issued July 16, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the risk of online fraud where third parties copy icons, logos, and other content to create fraudulent websites or emails (i.e., "phishing") designed to deceive consumers and steal personal information (’863 Patent, col. 1:24-62). Existing security protocols like HTTPS were seen as insufficient because consumers were often complacent about checking for them (’863 Patent, col. 2:1-3).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where an "authenticity stamp" is embedded into electronic content like a webpage (’863 Patent, Abstract). When a user requests the content, a client-side module (e.g., a browser plug-in) communicates with a server system to verify an "authenticity key" associated with the content. If verified, a user-defined visual stamp (e.g., "JOE'S SEAL OF APPROVAL" as shown in Fig. 2) is displayed, confirming to the user that the content is genuine and not a copy (’863 Patent, col. 4:7-17; Fig. 2). The stamp can be a static image, a complex fractal design, or even dynamic personal information known only to the user and the content provider, such as an account balance (’863 Patent, col. 4:45-46; col. 5:1-6).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to provide a more intuitive, user-centric security indicator than a simple URL or protocol check, creating a visual confirmation of trust between the content provider and the end-user (’863 Patent, col. 2:3-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’863 Patent are asserted, instead incorporating them by reference from an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶13). Analysis of representative independent Claim 1 is provided below.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • storing at least one authenticity stamp in a preferences file located in a file location accessible by one or more designated servers;
  • creating, by the one or more designated servers, an authenticity key with information to locate the preferences file;
  • receiving a request from a client computer for the at least one web page;
  • creating, by the one or more designated servers, formatted data corresponding to the requested at least one web page;
  • receiving, at the one or more designated servers, a request for the authenticity key used to locate the preferences file;
  • sending the formatted data to the client computer;
  • providing the authenticity key for manipulation to determine the file location of the preferences file;
  • manipulating the authenticity key to determine the file location of the preferences file;
  • locating the preferences file in the file location;
  • retrieving the at least one authenticity stamp from the preferences file; and
  • enabling the at least one authenticity stamp to be displayed with a representation of the formatted data on a display of the client computer.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name (Compl. ¶11). It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified only in charts within an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶13). Consequently, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement by incorporating claim charts from an unattached Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶13-14). As this exhibit was not provided, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Architectural Questions: A central question will be whether the accused instrumentality practices the specific, multi-step client-server architecture recited in the claims. For example, the claim requires a sequence where the server receives a page request, then separately receives a request for an "authenticity key," and then provides that key back to the client for "manipulation" to locate a local preferences file (’863 Patent, col. 14:50-65). Evidence of this specific request-and-response flow for the key itself will be critical.
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on the scope of key terms. For instance, does the accused system use an "authenticity stamp" stored in a "preferences file" as understood in the patent, or does it use a different mechanism for displaying a security indicator?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• 1. The Term: "authenticity stamp"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the ultimate user-facing output of the claimed method. Its construction will determine what type of visual or other indicator can satisfy the claim element, which is central to the infringement analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the stamp in general terms as an "icon with an additional level of functionality" (’863 Patent, col. 3:37-39) and notes that an "unlimited number of variations... are possible," including "graphics only, text only or a combination thereof" (’863 Patent, col. 4:18-20). This may support a broad definition covering many types of security indicators.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also discloses specific, complex embodiments, such as a "computer-generated fractal design" that is "virtually impossible to duplicate" (’863 Patent, col. 4:45-51) or a stamp containing dynamic, personal account information like a user's "last payment date" or "account balance" (’863 Patent, col. 5:1-6). A defendant may argue these specific examples limit the term to indicators with a high level of non-obvious, non-replicable information.

• 2. The Term: "a preferences file located in a file location accessible by one or more designated servers"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase in Claim 1 describes a core structural element of the system. Its construction is critical because it appears to create a potential tension: the specification describes the preferences file as being stored on the user's computer, yet the claim requires it to be in a location "accessible by" the server. Resolving this will be fundamental to determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation could render the claim either nonsensical or difficult to infringe.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language "accessible by" could be argued to mean accessible through any means, including the indirect request-and-response protocol where the client-side plug-in accesses its own local file and communicates with the server (’863 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 6:25-44).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that "accessible by... designated servers" means the file must be directly readable by the server from a network-accessible location, which would contradict the specification’s description of a file stored locally on the user's computer system (’863 Patent, col. 6:37-40). This could support a non-infringement argument or an indefiniteness challenge.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege any specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre- or post-suit knowledge or any other specific facts to support a claim for willful infringement, though it includes a prayer for a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. ¶17.E.i).

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

1. Claim Construction and Scope: A core issue will be one of definitional scope and coherence: can the claim term "preferences file located in a file location accessible by... designated servers" be construed in a way that is both consistent with the specification’s client-side storage model and broad enough to read on the architecture of the accused systems?

2. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural mapping: given the complaint's lack of specificity, can the plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that the accused products perform the highly specific, multi-step request-and-response protocol for an "authenticity key" that is required to practice the asserted claims?

3. Patent Validity: Given the patent’s 1999 priority date and the extensive litigation history of its parent patents documented within the patent itself, a central question will be the validity of the asserted claims in light of the outcomes of those prior challenges and the state of the art in the well-developed field of online security.