Touchpoint Projection Innovations LLC v. Check Point Software Tech Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Touchpoint Projections Innovations, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00279, N.D. Tex., 02/04/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a "regular, physical, continuous, and established place of business" in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Remote Browser Isolation security solution infringes a patent related to methods for securing network communications by intercepting and rendering web content into a safe format before delivery to a user's browser.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the risk of malware delivered through web browsing by interposing a remote service that isolates the user's computer from potentially malicious web code.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit was assigned from the original inventors to Everis, Inc., and subsequently from Everis, Inc. to Plaintiff Touchpoint. The complaint notes that the patent was examined by the USPTO, which considered numerous prior art references before allowing the claims.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,118,712 - "NETWORK COMMUNICATION SYSTEM WITH IMPROVED SECURITY," issued August 25, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of malware being delivered to a user's computer through sophisticated web browsing activities. As browser software became more robust, the risk of malicious code being transmitted from compromised websites increased, creating a need for better security that goes beyond conventional anti-virus software (Compl. ¶20-21; ’712 Patent, col. 1:24-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a security module that is interposed between the user's computer and internet servers ('712 Patent, Fig. 1). This module intercepts potentially malicious browser-readable code (e.g., an HTML webpage), processes it, and "renders" it into a new, safe format, such as a "pixilated image" with separate, secure layers for interactive elements like links or video ('712 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:52-57). This "recontainerized" and safe code set is then sent to the user's browser, effectively isolating the user from direct contact with the original, potentially harmful code ('712 Patent, col. 4:40-57).
• Technical Importance: This architecture provides security by transforming the fundamental nature of the data reaching the user's browser, rather than merely scanning for known malware signatures, addressing a key vulnerability in an increasingly interconnected environment (Compl. ¶25; ’712 Patent, col. 4:1-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶36).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • Providing a software rendering application that is remote from the user computer.
  • Intercepting a command from the user's browser intended for an internet data source.
  • Receiving responsive data from the internet data source.
  • Automatically rendering all received responsive data into an "interactive pixilated image as a layer" such that no original browser executable code will be executed at the user computer.
  • Overlaying the pixilated image data with a "secure browser readable code set layer" containing elements like a link, fillable field, or embedded media, which retains the original user functionality.
  • Sending the combined browser readable code set (pixilated layer + secure overlay) to the user's browser.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "Remote Browser Isolation (RBI)" solution and associated services (Compl. ¶30).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the RBI solution is a web security product that utilizes a "cloud-hosted browser, running in a sandboxed environment, to render the internet content requested by the user" (Compl. ¶30). This rendered content is then delivered to the user's device, a process which allegedly "prevents malware embedded in web pages from reaching the user's device" (Compl. ¶30).
• To support its allegations of Defendant's presence in the district, the complaint includes a map and image purporting to show Defendant's physical office in Irving, Texas (Compl. ¶10, Fig. 1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in an "Exhibit B" that was not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶35, 37). The infringement theory must therefore be reconstructed from the complaint’s narrative allegations.

'712 Patent Infringement Allegations

Plaintiff’s infringement theory centers on the assertion that Defendant’s RBI solution performs the patented method of securing web communications. The complaint alleges that the RBI product acts as the claimed "remote... software rendering application" by using a "cloud-hosted browser" to intercept and process web content on behalf of a user (Compl. ¶30). It is alleged that this cloud-based system "render[s] the internet content" before delivering it to the end-user, thereby preventing malware from reaching the user's device (Compl. ¶30). This sequence of operations is alleged to map onto the steps recited in Claim 1 of the ’712 patent, which require intercepting web data, rendering it into a safe format (a "pixilated image as a layer"), and sending the safe version to the user (Compl. ¶35-37). The complaint asserts this infringement is direct, occurring literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶36).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the "rendering" performed by Defendant's RBI product is technically equivalent to the specific process claimed in the patent, which requires creating an "interactive pixilated image as a layer" and overlaying it with a "secure browser readable code set layer." The complaint does not provide technical details on how the RBI product's rendering process functions.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether Defendant's "cloud-hosted browser" qualifies as the claimed "software rendering application." The parties may contest if a full-fledged browser operating in the cloud is the same as the more purpose-built "security module" described in the patent specification.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "automatically rendering... all received responsive data into an interactive pixilated image as a layer"
• Context and Importance: This term is the technical core of the invention. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the accused RBI technology performs this specific type of data transformation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges "rendering" in a general sense but provides no evidence that the accused process creates a "pixilated image" as the base layer, which is a highly specific architecture.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s "Brief Summary of the Invention" describes the process more generally as producing a "rendered and/or recontainerized browser readable code set," which could suggest the specific "pixilated image" is just one example ('712 Patent, col. 4:50-53).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself is quite specific. The detailed description further reinforces a narrow interpretation, explaining that text is rendered into a "pixelated bitmap of a picture of the text" and recontainerized into a new HTML page containing the image ('712 Patent, col. 8:4-11). This suggests the "pixilated image" is a required structural element, not just a high-level concept of making data safe.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by "providing instructions to consumer end-users" on how to use the accused RBI services in a way that practices the patented method (Compl. ¶48). It also alleges that Defendant's customers directly infringe by using the RBI services in their "normal and customary way" (Compl. ¶47).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of the ’712 patent "at least as of the service of the present complaint" (Compl. ¶34). It further alleges that Defendant, after becoming aware of its infringement, "has made no effort to alter its services or otherwise attempt to design around the claims," which it characterizes as "blatant and egregious disregard" for Plaintiff's patent rights (Compl. ¶52).

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:

1. A key issue will be one of technical implementation: Does the accused Remote Browser Isolation product actually perform the specific method of "rendering... data into an interactive pixilated image as a layer" and overlaying it with a secure code set, as explicitly required by Claim 1? The high-level allegation of "rendering" in the complaint will require detailed evidentiary support showing a match to this specific, multi-step architecture.

2. A secondary issue will be one of claim scope: How broadly will the court construe the term "software rendering application"? The case may explore whether a "cloud-hosted browser," as the complaint describes the accused product, is structurally and functionally the same as the "security module" contemplated by the patent.