Veribase LLC v. Razer USA Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VeriBase LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Razer USA Ltd. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01236, E.D. Tex., 12/18/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unspecified products of Defendant infringe a patent related to securing a computer system by selectively controlling an application's ability to write data to a storage medium.
• Technical Context: The patent addresses a method of proactive computer security, aiming to prevent malware infections by intercepting and evaluating data-write requests against a pre-defined set of rules before they can be executed.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-12-01	’661 Patent Priority Date
2017-03-21	’661 Patent Issue Date
2025-12-18	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,600,661 - "System and method to secure a computer system by selective control of write access to a data storage medium"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,600,661, "System and method to secure a computer system by selective control of write access to a data storage medium," issued March 21, 2017 (Compl. ¶9; ’661 Patent, cover).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the proliferation of computer viruses and notes that conventional anti-virus programs are often reactive, dealing with an infection only after it has occurred, and may be slow to identify new threats ('661 Patent, col. 1:11-23).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a proactive security method where a background process, termed an "interceptor," monitors all attempts by applications to write data to a storage device like a hard drive. When a write attempt is detected, the interceptor interrogates a "rules database" to determine if the specific application has permission. Based on the rules, the write access is either allowed or blocked, thereby preventing unauthorized programs from saving malicious code to the system ('661 Patent, col. 1:26-33; Fig. 1). If no rule exists for a given application, the system can prompt the user for a decision ('661 Patent, col. 3:18-24).
• Technical Importance: This rule-based interception approach provides a potential defense against unknown or "zero-day" threats that traditional signature-based antivirus software, which relies on identifying known viruses, might not detect ('661 Patent, col. 1:21-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and references "Exemplary '661 Patent Claims" in an exhibit not attached to the complaint, but does not identify any specific claims in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶11). The following analysis focuses on independent claim 1 as a representative claim.
• Independent Claim 1 of the ’661 Patent recites:
  • running a first process operating in kernel mode that monitors data storage device accesses;
  • detecting an attempt by a distinct application to write data to the storage device;
  • interrogating a rules database that contains references to applications and their associated access levels; and
  • controlling the application's write access based on the access level found in the rules database.
• The complaint's broad allegation of infringing "one or more claims" may be intended to preserve the right to assert dependent claims as the case develops (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name any specific accused products, referring to them generally as "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11). It states these products are identified in charts within "Exhibit 2," which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' functionality. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '661 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to claim charts in an external "Exhibit 2," which is not included in the provided court filing (Compl. ¶17). The narrative complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims but provides no specific details mapping product features to claim limitations (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Due to the limited detail in the complaint, any analysis of potential disputes is preliminary. Key questions that may arise include:
  • Technical Questions: What evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused products, once identified, perform security monitoring via a "kernel mode process" as required by claim 1? Does the functionality of any accused Razer software involve intercepting write requests from other applications and checking them against a "rules database" containing specific "access levels"?
  • Scope Questions: How will the term "rules database" be defined in the context of the accused products? A central question may be whether any security or permissions list within the accused software meets the structural and functional requirements of the "rules database" as described in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "a first process... operating in kernel mode" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is technically specific and appears central to the claimed invention's method of operation. Infringement will likely depend on whether the accused products utilize software architecture that operates at the kernel level of the operating system. Practitioners may focus on this term because kernel-mode access provides a high level of system control, distinguishing it from application-level processes.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example, stating that "in the preferred embodiment, the interceptor module is a kernel mode driver which has a higher level of access to the Windows file system and system resources" ('661 Patent, col. 4:38-42). This could support an argument that the term is limited to this specific type of implementation.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims the method more generally as a "process operating in kernel mode," which a party could argue is not necessarily limited to the single "kernel mode driver" embodiment described in the specification ('661 Patent, col. 6:11-12).

The Term: "rules database" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The structure and content of the "rules database" are fundamental to the claimed method of controlling write access. The dispute may turn on whether a permissions system in an accused product constitutes a "rules database" as claimed.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines a rule database broadly as "a set of entries or references in a data structure where the identity of an application is paired with one or more permission values" ('661 Patent, col. 2:35-38). This language could support construing the term to cover a wide variety of data structures that associate applications with permissions.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes a detailed, multi-level permission structure (e.g., Level 0 for no access, Level 1 for full access, Level 2 for access to specified file extensions) ('661 Patent, col. 2:54-68). This could support a narrower construction requiring the database to implement a similar tiered logic of access levels.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’661 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it alleges that the service of the complaint provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" and that Defendant's continued infringement despite this knowledge is ongoing (Compl. ¶13, ¶14). These allegations may form the basis for a claim of post-filing willful infringement.

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint makes conclusory infringement allegations without identifying accused products or mapping their specific functionalities to the patent's claims. A key question is what facts discovery will yield regarding the architecture and operation of Defendant's software to substantiate these claims.
• A central technical question will be one of architectural correspondence: Do any of Defendant's products employ a security mechanism that relies on a kernel-mode process to intercept write requests from distinct applications and adjudicate them against a rules-based permission system, or do they achieve security through fundamentally different technical means that fall outside the patent's claim scope?