DCT

2:25-cv-00653

Touchpoint Projection Innovations LLC v. Musarubra US LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00653, E.D. Tex., 06/23/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established physical place of business—its corporate headquarters—within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Remote Browser Isolation platform infringes a patent related to securing web communications by remotely rendering potentially malicious content into a safe format before delivery to the end-user.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue is remote browser isolation (RBI), a cybersecurity method designed to protect user devices from web-based threats by executing browsing activity in a remote, contained environment.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes the patent-in-suit was assigned from the inventors to Everis, Inc., and subsequently from Everis, Inc. to Plaintiff. It also notes that the patent underwent examination at the USPTO where prior art was considered.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-12-30 '712 Patent Priority Date
2015-08-25 '712 Patent Issue Date
2025-06-23 Complaint Filing Date

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 receiving malware when "surfing the web" ('712 Patent, col. 1:18-23). As browser software becomes more robust and capable of handling complex code, the risk of infection from malicious code also increases, and conventional anti-virus software is not always sufficient protection ('712 Patent, col. 1:64-2:2; col. 4:1-3).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention interposes a remote "security module" between the user's computer and internet servers ('712 Patent, Fig. 1). This module intercepts potentially unsafe web content, "renders" it into an "interactive pixilated image" (effectively a visual representation), and then overlays this image with a "secure browser readable code set layer" that reconstructs the original user functionality, such as links or forms. This new, sanitized package is then sent to the user's browser, neutralizing malware by converting executable code into a safe visual format while preserving interactivity ('712 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:40-57).
  • Technical Importance: This approach supports the "thin client" architecture model by moving the security-sensitive task of rendering web content off the end-user's device and into a controlled, remote environment, thereby reducing the device's vulnerability ('712 Patent, col. 4:21-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 ('Compl. ¶ 36).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the essential elements of:
    • Providing a remote software rendering application.
    • Intercepting and proxying a command from a user's browser.
    • Receiving responsive data from an internet source.
    • "Automatically rendering" all the responsive data into an "interactive pixilated image as a layer" such that no original executable code will be run on the user's computer.
    • "Overlaying" the pixilated image with a "secure browser readable code set layer" that contains the original functionality (e.g., links, video, forms).
    • Sending the resulting browser readable code set to the user's browser.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Skyhigh Remote Browser Isolation (RBI) platform ("Skyhigh RBI") (Compl. ¶ 30).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Skyhigh RBI platform is designed to prevent web-based threats from reaching user endpoints (Compl. ¶ 30). When a user initiates a browsing session, the platform allegedly "loads and renders the website and other requested content in a temporary browser hosted in a remote data center" (Compl. ¶ 30). The platform then "manages all interactions within an isolated environment, ensuring harmful code or malware remains confined and never reaches the endpoints" (Compl. ¶ 30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in Exhibit B to detail its infringement allegations; however, this exhibit was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 37). The narrative theory of infringement alleges that the Skyhigh RBI platform practices the method of claim 1 of the ’712 Patent (Compl. ¶ 37). The complaint alleges that the platform's function of loading and rendering web content in a remote data center corresponds to the claimed steps of providing a remote rendering application, intercepting requests, and receiving responsive data (Compl. ¶ 30). The allegation that the platform "manages all interactions within an isolated environment" and ensures that harmful code does not reach the user's endpoint appears to be the basis for alleging the "rendering" and "overlaying" limitations of the claim (Compl. ¶ 30).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A primary question may be whether the Skyhigh RBI platform's process of hosting a "temporary browser" and managing interactions is technically equivalent to the claimed method of "automatically rendering... data into an interactive pixilated image as a layer" and then "overlaying" it with a separate "secure browser readable code set layer." The complaint's description does not specify the precise technical mechanism used by the accused product to isolate and present content, which will be a key factual issue.
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may center on whether the term "interactive pixilated image," as used in the patent, can be construed to read on the output generated by the accused RBI platform. The evidence will need to show whether the accused product generates a literal pixel-based image stream or uses a different data-structuring approach to achieve isolation.

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 is the core of the claimed invention, defining the specific mechanism for neutralizing malware. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the accused RBI platform's method of processing web content falls within the scope of this language.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes rendering even video into a "series of rendered base images," which could suggest "pixilated image" covers dynamic, streaming visual data, not just a single static file ('712 Patent, col. 8:41-42). The modifier "interactive" also suggests a scope beyond a simple, non-functional bitmap.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an example where text is rendered into a "pixelated bitmap," and the rendered base image is compressed as a "jpg image file" ('712 Patent, col. 8:5-12). This could be used to argue the term requires the creation of a discrete image file format, rather than a more abstract data stream.

  • The Term: "overlaying... with a secure browser readable code set layer"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the two-part structure of the invention's output: a visual base layer and a functional overlay. Proving infringement will require showing the accused product creates this specific layered structure. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern RBI systems may use various techniques to handle user interactions that may or may not involve a distinct "overlay."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional, requiring a "layer" that includes the "original user functionality" ('712 Patent, col. 16:29-32). This might be argued to cover any technical means of separating the visual presentation from the interactive elements.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification gives an example of adding "additional layers as standard CSS layers as is readable by currently conventional browsers" ('712 Patent, col. 8:54-57). This could support an argument that the term is limited to specific web technologies like HTML and CSS for creating the overlay.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant provides instructions to its end-users on how to use the accused platform, thereby causing them to directly infringe the claimed method (Compl. ¶ 48). It further alleges Defendant acts with "knowledge of, and the specific intent to cause, the acts of direct infringement" (Compl. ¶ 49).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain the word "willful." However, it alleges that Defendant has knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present complaint" and has "made no effort to alter its services or otherwise attempt to design around the claims" after becoming aware of its infringement, which may form the basis for a post-filing willfulness claim (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 52).

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two central questions regarding the technology:

  1. A key issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the patent's term "interactive pixilated image as a layer," which the specification links to "pixelated bitmap" and "jpg" files, be construed to cover the interactive remote browsing session generated and streamed by the accused Skyhigh RBI platform?
  2. A core evidentiary question will be one of functional mismatch: Does the accused platform's method for managing user interactions in a remote environment perform the specific, two-step claimed process of rendering a base visual image and then "overlaying" it with a separate, reconstructed functional layer, or does it employ a fundamentally different technical architecture for providing a secure, interactive user experience?