UniQom LLC v. Acer Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: UniQom LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Acer, Inc. (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00830, E.D. Tex., 08/21/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products infringe a patent related to using a unique microprocessor identity to create a digital identity for secure electronic communications and software licensing.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the need for reliable authentication and security in digital communications and transactions by binding a digital identity to a unique hardware identifier within a microprocessor.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit was the subject of two ex parte reexamination requests in 2023. The resulting reexamination certificate, issued in April 2024, confirmed the patentability of claims 1-4, 12, and 13, while claims 5-11 were not reexamined.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,493,497, "DIGITAL IDENTITY DEVICE," issued February 17, 2009.

• The Invention Explained:

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for a reliable method of authenticating parties in electronic communications to ensure privacy and security, where each party must be "clearly identifiable and distinguishable" (’497 Patent, col. 1:13-16).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "microprocessor identity device" that contains unique, permanent "microprocessor identity information" etched directly onto the chip during manufacturing (’497 Patent, col. 5:67-col. 6:4; col. 11:61-col. 12:1). This hardware-based identifier is then bound to "digital identity data" (e.g., a user's name or corporate information) stored in memory, creating a secure digital identity (’497 Patent, col. 4:59-61). The system uses this bound identity for functions like securing electronic documents, authenticating transactions, and licensing software to specific devices (’497 Patent, col. 2:42-52; col. 8:51-57). Figure 2 illustrates the core architecture, showing a microprocessor identity device (205) with its unique information (230) coupled to memories (210a, 210b) that store digital identity data (220) and an operating system (225).
  • Technical Importance: The approach links a mutable digital identity to an immutable hardware identifier, aiming to provide a more robust security foundation than purely software-based authentication methods (’497 Patent, col. 1:21-24).

• Key Claims at a Glance:

  • The complaint does not identify specific claims asserted against the Defendant (Compl. ¶11, ¶13). It refers generally to "exemplary method claims" and "Exemplary '497 Patent Claims."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not name any specific accused products (Compl. ¶11). It refers to them only as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" throughout the pleading (Compl. ¶11, ¶13).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused products. It alleges only that these unnamed products "practice the technology claimed by the '497 Patent" and that infringement allegations are detailed in an external exhibit not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide an independent claim number or the claim chart exhibit (Exhibit 2) it incorporates by reference (Compl. ¶13-14). It therefore does not contain sufficient detail to analyze the specific infringement allegations or construct a claim chart summary. The pleading states only that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the "Exemplary '497 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶13).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint’s failure to identify any specific asserted claims precludes an analysis of key terms for claim construction.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect infringement; it alleges only "Direct Infringement" (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not include factual allegations to support willful infringement. The prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but the body of the complaint provides no basis for this request (Compl. p. 4).

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

The complaint as filed is exceptionally sparse, leaving the most critical questions of the case entirely unanswered. The litigation will likely center on the following foundational issues:

1. Identification of the Accused Instrumentalities: A primary issue will be clarifying exactly which of Defendant's products are accused of infringement. The complaint’s use of the generic term "Exemplary Defendant Products" provides no notice of the scope of the dispute.
2. Evidentiary Basis for Infringement: The central question is what technical evidence Plaintiff will offer to support its allegations. Since the complaint’s infringement theory is wholly contained within a non-public exhibit, the case cannot proceed substantively until this information is produced and its technical merits can be assessed.
3. Specification of Asserted Claims: A threshold issue will be identifying which specific patent claims are asserted. Without this information, it is impossible to frame the scope of the infringement analysis or begin the claim construction process.