UniQom LLC v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: UniQom LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00831, E.D. Tex., 08/21/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation that has committed acts of patent infringement in the district, causing harm.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to using a unique microprocessor identifier to create a secure digital identity for electronic devices and communications.
• Technical Context: The technology provides a hardware-based root of trust for digital authentication, where a unique, unchangeable identifier within a microprocessor is used to secure user or device data.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 7,493,497, was the subject of an ex parte reexamination, which concluded with a certificate issued on April 19, 2024. The patentability of claims 1-4, 12, and 13 was confirmed, a factor that may influence subsequent validity challenges.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,493,497 - "DIGITAL IDENTITY DEVICE"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the general need for secure authentication in electronic communications, where parties must be "clearly identifiable and distinguishable" to ensure privacy and security (’497 Patent, col. 1:11-16). It identifies a specific need for a method of using unique microprocessor identifiers to create digital identities for this purpose (’497 Patent, col. 1:19-23).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "digital identity device" that combines a unique, hardware-based "microprocessor identity" with other digital data (e.g., a user's name) to create a secure digital identity (’497 Patent, Abstract). The core concept, illustrated in Figure 2, involves an operating system that "binds" the digital identity data to the microprocessor's unique identifier by encoding or encrypting the data using an algorithm that incorporates the microprocessor's unique ID (’497 Patent, col. 4:36-42). This creates a link between the hardware and the identity data, providing a hardware-based root of trust.
• Technical Importance: This approach anchors digital identity to a physical, difficult-to-alter hardware feature, which can offer greater security than purely software-based identification methods.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
• Essential elements of Claim 1:
  • A microprocessor containing a unique "microprocessor identity" that is "etched into" an on-die Programmable Read-Only Memory (PROM).
  • "Digital identity data" that identifies an owner of the device (e.g., a name).
  • A memory to store the digital identity data.
  • The microprocessor identity is an "alpha-numeric value."
  • The digital identity data is "bound to the microprocessor identity by encrypting the digital identity data using an algorithm that uses the microprocessor identity."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name any specific products, referring only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '497 Patent" but provides no specific details about their functionality (Compl. ¶13). All technical allegations are contained within "Exhibit 2," which was not publicly filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶13-14). Therefore, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functions.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an unprovided "Exhibit 2" to support its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶13). The narrative theory is limited to the conclusory statement that the "Exemplary Defendant Products satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '497 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶13). Without access to the charts or specific product details, a tabular analysis is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the language of claim 1 and the general nature of modern computing devices, the infringement analysis may raise several technical and legal questions.
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether modern processors, which embed unique identifiers using techniques potentially different from early-2000s technology, contain a "microprocessor identity" that is "etched into the PROM" as required by the claim. The interpretation of this manufacturing-specific language will be critical.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products perform the specific binding function claimed—namely, "encrypting the digital identity data using an algorithm that uses the microprocessor identity"? Proving that the accused software and hardware interact in this precise manner may require significant discovery and technical evidence.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "etched into the PROM"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in claim 1 and describes how the unique microprocessor identity is physically instantiated. Its construction is critical because modern processors may use different methods for permanently embedding identifiers (e.g., laser fuses, physically unclonable functions). The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether these modern techniques fall within the scope of "etched into the PROM."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Practitioners may argue that in the context of the patent, "etched" is used as a representative term for any method that permanently affixes the identifier to the microprocessor at the time of manufacture, consistent with the patent's goal of creating a unique, unalterable hardware ID.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses the term "etched" in a direct sense, stating the identity "is etched at the time the microprocessor component... is etched" (’497 Patent, col. 6:1-3) and "is etched at the time of manufacturing" (’497 Patent, col. 6:33-35). This language may support an argument that the term is limited to the specific semiconductor fabrication process of etching and does not cover other methods of creating permanent identifiers.

• The Term: "bound to the microprocessor identity by encrypting... using an algorithm that uses the microprocessor identity"

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the crucial security link between the hardware identifier and the user's data. The dispute will likely focus on what it means for the algorithm to "use" the microprocessor identity.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the operating system binding data by "encoding the digital identity data with passwords" and, separately, states the encoding is done "by an algorithm that uses the microprocessor identity information" (’497 Patent, col. 4:37-42). This could suggest that the microprocessor identity need only be one input into a larger security process, not necessarily the sole encryption key itself.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that "uses the microprocessor identity" requires the identity to play a direct and specific cryptographic role in the encryption algorithm, such as serving as the key or a primary seed for key generation. Evidence that the accused system uses the ID merely as a data tag or for a non-cryptographic check could fall outside a narrower construction of this term.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges only "Direct Infringement" and does not contain factual allegations to support claims of induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement. It requests that the case be declared "exceptional" for the purpose of attorney's fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 but makes no specific factual allegations regarding pre- or post-suit knowledge to support a claim for enhanced damages under § 284 (Compl. p.4, ¶E.i).

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

1. A core issue will be one of technological scope: Can the term "etched into the PROM," which describes a specific manufacturing process from the patent’s priority era, be construed to cover the methods used to embed unique hardware identifiers in modern computer processors? The outcome of this claim construction dispute may be determinative.
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: Given the complaint’s lack of technical detail, the case will likely turn on whether Plaintiff can obtain and present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accused ASUSTeK products perform the precise binding method recited in claim 1—specifically, that they encrypt identity data using an algorithm that cryptographically "uses" the hardware's unique identifier.