DCT
4:19-cv-00347
Akoloutheo LLC v. Symantec Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Akoloutheo, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Symantec Corp. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: RWBurns & Co., PLLC
- Case Identification: 4:19-cv-00347, E.D. Tex., 05/10/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in Plano, Texas, within the Eastern District, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s web and cloud security services infringe a patent related to a generalized framework for processing transactions between disparate information services and applications.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of integrating various networked information services, a foundational concept for modern web services, API gateways, and cloud computing platforms.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-04-19 | U.S. Patent No. 7,426,730 Priority Date |
| 2008-09-16 | U.S. Patent No. 7,426,730 Issue Date |
| 2019-05-10 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,426,730 - "Method and System for Generalized and Adaptive Transaction Processing Between Uniform Information Services and Applications"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,426,730, "Method and System for Generalized and Adaptive Transaction Processing Between Uniform Information Services and Applications," issued September 16, 2008 (’730 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the difficulty of integrating different online information sources, such as mapping and traffic data, which often requires custom, point-to-point software solutions and leads to information being presented independently rather than cohesively (’730 Patent, col. 2:5-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "Transaction Processing Function" (TPF) that acts as a universal intermediary to manage transactions between various service providers and consumers. This is achieved through a standardized framework using a "Uniform Specification Model" (USM) to classify services and a "transaction definition" (TD) to describe the desired interaction, allowing the system to dynamically configure and process transactions based on context without hard-coded connections between services (’730 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:11-20).
- Technical Importance: The described system provided a model for moving beyond custom, brittle integrations toward a more scalable and automated framework for orchestrating web services, a key challenge as online services grew in complexity and number (’730 Patent, col. 3:4-15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (system), 15 (system), and 17 (method) of the ’730 Patent (Compl. ¶28).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- a resource transaction processing module;
- a plurality of remotely located resource providers communicatively coupled to the module;
- a resource information registry for storing information about the resources; and
- wherein the module, upon receiving a request, (i) constructs a transaction situation context, (ii) dynamically selects a resource, (iii) determines discrete operations, (iv) obtains the resource, and (v) processes it to generate a resultant resource.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies "Symantec's Web Security Service and Secure Access Cloud software systems" (collectively, "Symantec Systems") as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Symantec Systems are alleged to be cloud-based services for monitoring and managing networked resources, operating across a "diversified network of certified global datacenters" (Compl. ¶11; p. 4). The complaint states the systems use proxy technology and a "Global Intelligence Network" to provide real-time web security, including malware scanning, data loss prevention, and application controls (Compl. p. 4). User requests for network resources are initiated through an "Orchestrator Portal" and processed by a "Client Traffic Controller," which utilizes "contextual elements" and information from registries, such as a "URL Filtering and Categorization" service, to process requests and enforce policies (Compl. ¶¶13-16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint includes a network diagram that illustrates the alleged system architecture, showing various enterprise components connecting through the central Symantec Web Security Service (Compl. p. 4). A "Topography" diagram further depicts the flow of web requests through an "Orchestrator" portal (Compl. p. 5).
'730 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a resource transaction processing module; | The complaint alleges that "Symantec Systems comprise transaction processing module(s)." This appears to correspond to the described Orchestrator Portal and Client Traffic Controller that process requests. | ¶22 | col. 29:62-62 |
| a plurality of resource providers, each resource provider being remotely located...and communicatively coupled... | The Symantec Systems are described as comprising a "plurality of networked resources" and operating across a "diversified network of certified global datacenters" to which users and applications connect. | ¶23 | col. 30:1-8 |
| a resource information registry communicatively coupled...for storing information about the resources provided by the plurality of resource providers... | The complaint alleges Symantec Systems "maintain registries of networked data resources and data characteristics," pointing to a "URL Filtering and Categorization" service that classifies URLs into content and security categories. | ¶24, ¶16 | col. 30:9-15 |
| wherein, in response to receiving a transaction request, the resource transaction processing module: constructs a transaction situation context... | It is alleged that the "Symantec Systems process a transaction request utilizing contextual elements related to the request and/or the user entering the request." | ¶25 | col. 30:16-21 |
| dynamically selects at least one resource to process... | The complaint alleges that "Symantec Systems select one or more data resources...to satisfy the transaction request." | ¶26 | col. 30:22-25 |
| determines one or more discrete operations to perform on the at least one selected resource... | The allegation states that Symantec Systems "perform one or more operations on those data resources to satisfy the transaction request." | ¶26 | col. 30:26-29 |
| obtains the at least one selected resource from the resource provider providing that resource; | This is alleged by implication, as the system must obtain a resource to process it. The complaint describes the system as processing web requests and delivering content. | ¶26, ¶15 | col. 30:30-32 |
| and processes the at least one selected resource...to generate a resultant resource. | The complaint alleges that "Symantec Systems generate a resultant data resource responsive to the transaction request, and delivers that resultant data resource to the user." | ¶27 | col. 30:33-36 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the functional components of Symantec's security architecture (e.g., "Orchestrator Portal," "Client Traffic Controller") fall within the patent’s definitions of a "resource transaction processing module". The complaint provides a graphic describing a "URL Filtering and Categorization" service, raising the question of whether this security-focused feature constitutes the claimed "resource information registry" for brokering transactions among disparate services (Compl. p. 5).
- Technical Questions: The patent describes a system for integrating different types of services (e.g., maps, traffic). The complaint accuses a system that appears to apply security policies to a specific type of transaction (web requests). This raises the question of whether the accused product's policy enforcement engine performs the "dynamic selection" and "transaction processing" required by the claims in the manner disclosed in the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "resource transaction processing module"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central processing engine of the claimed invention. Its construction will be critical in determining whether Symantec's architecture, designed for web security, performs the functions of the claimed transaction-brokering module.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines a "Transaction Processing Function" (TPF) as a "software component that manages transactions between one or more information services," which could be argued to cover any software intermediary in a networked system (’730 Patent, col. 4:50-54).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 12 of the patent depicts a specific, multi-stage process for the TPF, including "Process TD," "Build TSC," and "Atomize TD Operations" (’730 Patent, FIG. 12). A party could argue that an accused system must perform these specific, discrete sub-functions to meet the limitation.
The Term: "resource information registry"
- Context and Importance: The infringement reading depends on whether Symantec's "URL Filtering and Categorization" feature (Compl. ¶16) is equivalent to the claimed registry. The definition will turn on what type of "information" must be stored and for what purpose.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a "Uniform Specification Repository" (USR) that stores "classifications" and "attributes" of services and resources, a description that could potentially encompass a database of URL categories and risk ratings (’730 Patent, col. 5:4-8).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent details a highly structured "Uniform Specification Model" (USM) that the registry uses, containing specific objects like "ServiceSpecifier", "ClassSpecifier", and "ServiceBindingTemplate" (’730 Patent, FIG. 8). A party may argue that the accused registry must conform to this specific taxonomic structure, not just be a general-purpose database for policy enforcement.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges indirect infringement based on Symantec exercising "exclusive control and direction" over the accused systems and requiring end users to operate them "in a manner prescribed and controlled by Symantec" (Compl. ¶¶32, 34).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint asserts willfulness based on notice provided by the filing of the lawsuit, stating that Defendant's conduct is knowing and deliberate "with notice being made at least as early as the service date of this complaint" (Prayer for Relief, ¶d). No pre-suit knowledge is alleged.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the abstract, service-brokering terms of the '730 patent, such as "resource transaction processing module" and "resource information registry", be construed to read on the concrete components of a modern cloud security platform, which are designed for policy enforcement and threat mitigation rather than the integration of disparate information types?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence: does the accused Symantec system, in applying security rules to web traffic, perform the specific, multi-step, dynamic transaction-orchestration process required by the asserted claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation between the patent's service-integration framework and the accused product's security-filtering architecture?