DCT

6:10-cv-00018

Uniloc USA Inc v. BCL Technologies

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:10-cv-00018, E.D. Tex., 01/27/2010
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on allegations that each defendant has transacted business in the district, committed acts of infringement in the district (including via their websites), and maintained minimum contacts with the state of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that software products sold by the thirteen defendants infringe a patent related to a system for software registration and anti-piracy.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns digital rights management (DRM) systems designed to prevent unauthorized copying of software by tying a license to a specific user and/or computer platform.
  • Key Procedural History: The provided documents indicate that subsequent to the filing of this complaint, U.S. Patent No. 5,490,216 was the subject of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. An IPR certificate issued on July 25, 2018, cancelled all claims of the patent (claims 1-20). This post-filing event is dispositive as to the patent's enforceability.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1992-09-21 ’216 Patent Priority Date
1996-02-06 ’216 Patent Issue Date
2010-01-27 Complaint Filing Date
2018-07-25 IPR Certificate Issued Cancelling All Claims of the ’216 Patent

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,490,216, "System for Software Registration," issued February 6, 1996.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes prior art software security as suffering from two main problems: simple registration numbers are easily copied along with the software, while more complex systems are inconvenient, requiring the user to obtain essential parts of the program from a remote source after purchase (’216 Patent, col. 1:11-48).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where the distributed software contains a "code portion" with a registration algorithm. This algorithm on the user's computer (the "local" platform) generates a key based on information unique to the licensee. This algorithm is "duplicated at a remote location" (the "registration authority"). The user communicates their information to the remote authority, which uses the duplicated algorithm to generate a matching key and provides it back to the user, who enters it to switch the software from a "demonstration mode" to a full "use mode" (’216 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:2-9).
  • Technical Importance: The system aimed to create a robust link between a software copy and a specific licensee without needing to burn a unique identifier onto every disk at the time of manufacture, thereby increasing security while maintaining distribution flexibility (’216 Patent, col. 3:10-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’216 Patent it asserts. Based on the infringement allegations, independent claim 12 appears representative of the asserted subject matter.
  • Independent Claim 12 Elements:
    • A registration system attachable to software to be protected,
    • said registration system generating a security key from information input to said software which uniquely identifies an intended registered user of said software on a computer on which said software is to be installed; and
    • wherein said registration system is replicated at a registration authority and used for the purposes of checking by the registration authority that the information unique to the user is correctly entered at the time that the security key is generated by the registration system.
  • The complaint makes general allegations of infringement of the patent as a whole, which would implicitly include all claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses a range of software products from thirteen different defendants, including "easyConverter Desktop products" (BCL Technologies), "Easy Video Editor products" (Honestech), "CuteFTP products" (GlobalSCAPE), "Argus Valuation products" (Argus), and "Pyware 3D products" (Pygraphics) (Compl. ¶¶24-28).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that each accused product line utilizes a registration system for activation (Compl. ¶¶24-36). The functional description of each accused system is identical and conclusory, stating that they "use a registration system generating a security key from information input to the software which uniquely identifies an intended registered user" and that this system is "replicated at a registration authority" for checking purposes (Compl. ¶¶24-36). The complaint provides no specific technical details about how any of the accused registration systems actually operate, nor does it provide information on their market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Claim Chart Summary

The following table summarizes the infringement allegations for a representative independent claim, which are asserted in nearly identical, conclusory language against all thirteen defendants.

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A registration system attachable to software to be protected... Defendants' products are alleged to be "software products that utilize a method and/or system for activating software products." ¶24 col. 4:65-67
...said registration system generating a security key from information input to said software which uniquely identifies an intended registered user of said software on a computer on which said software is to be installed... The accused products allegedly "use a registration system generating a security key from information input to the software which uniquely identifies an intended registered user of the software on a computer on which the software is to be installed." ¶24 col. 4:1-4
...and wherein said registration system is replicated at a registration authority and used for the purposes of checking by the registration authority that the information unique to the user is correctly entered at the time that the security key is generated by the registration system. The complaint alleges that in the accused products, "The registration system is replicated at a registration authority for the purpose of checking that the information unique to the user is correctly entered at the time that the security key is generated by the registration system." ¶24 col. 4:14-19

Identified Points of Contention

  • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations are based entirely "upon information and belief" and appear to be a verbatim recitation of the language of claim 12. A primary point of contention would be whether the Plaintiff has a sufficient factual basis for these allegations, as the complaint provides no technical details, screenshots, or other evidence demonstrating the specific operation of any of the thirteen accused registration systems.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute would raise the question of what constitutes "information... which uniquely identifies an intended registered user." It is unclear from the complaint what specific user data the accused systems allegedly use and whether that data is sufficient to meet the "uniquely identifies" limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "replicated at a registration authority"
  • Context and Importance: The meaning of this term is critical for determining infringement, as it defines the required relationship between the software on the user's computer and the licensor's remote server. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint provides no detail on how the defendants' remote systems actually function, making this a likely area of non-infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be argued to cover any remote system that performs a functionally equivalent check, regardless of the specific implementation. Claim 12 itself refers to the replication being for the "purposes of checking," which could suggest a focus on function over form.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states, "The algorithm in the code portion is duplicated at a remote location" (’216 Patent, col. 3:2-4). Furthermore, Figure 8 depicts the same "ALG" (algorithm) block (38 and 61) at both the "Local Licensee Location" and the "Remote Registration Database Location," which suggests the patent contemplates an identical algorithmic structure at both ends, not just a functional check.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes boilerplate allegations of induced and contributory infringement against all defendants, based on their acts of "making, using, importing, selling or offering to sell" the accused software products (Compl. ¶¶24-36). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support the requisite knowledge and intent for these claims.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that any infringement was willful and seeks enhanced damages, stating that defendants had notice "at least as early as the date of the filing of this Complaint" (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶4). This suggests a theory of willfulness based on post-filing conduct, as no pre-suit knowledge is alleged.

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

  1. A threshold, and likely dispositive, issue is that of patent validity. The provided IPR certificate, issued years after this complaint was filed, indicates that all claims of the ’216 Patent have been cancelled. Given this, the patent is unenforceable, rendering the infringement allegations in this case moot.

  2. An antecedent question, assuming the patent were still valid, would be one of pleading sufficiency. The complaint's infringement allegations against thirteen distinct defendants are identically worded and merely recite the language of the patent's claims without offering any supporting facts. The case would face the question of whether such conclusory pleadings meet federal standards.

  3. A central legal question for the original dispute would have been one of claim construction and technical scope: does the term "replicated at a registration authority," as described in the patent's specification, require the remote server to execute an identical copy of the local algorithm, or can it be met by a remote system that merely validates a key through other means? The answer to this would have been fundamental to the infringement analysis.