DCT

3:25-cv-01599

Authentixx LLC v. Pickleball OpCo LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:25-cv-01599, N.D. Tex., 09/19/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Texas because the Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products, which appear to involve web page authentication, infringe a patent related to a system for authenticating electronic content.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for verifying the authenticity of web pages to combat phishing and identity theft by using a combination of server-side keys and client-side, user-defined visual stamps.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-09-09 U.S. Patent No. 10,355,863 Priority Date
2017-12-08 U.S. Patent No. 10,355,863 Application Date
2019-07-16 U.S. Patent No. 10,355,863 Issued
2025-09-19 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,355,863 - “System and method for authenticating electronic content”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,355,863, “System and method for authenticating electronic content,” issued July 16, 2019 (’863 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of fraudulent websites and emails that mimic legitimate ones to deceive consumers and steal information. The background section notes that visual elements like corporate logos can be easily copied and URLs can be spoofed, leaving users uncertain about the "true owner of a web page" (’863 Patent, col. 1:24-40).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a distributed authentication system. A server processing a web page request generates and inserts a unique "authenticity key" into the page's content before sending it to the user (’863 Patent, col. 2:14-19). A client-side component, such as a browser plug-in, detects this key, verifies it, and then retrieves a user-defined "authenticity stamp" from a local "preferences file" to display on the page (’863 Patent, col. 8:5-15). This separates the difficult-to-forge authentication mechanism (the key and local file) from the easily copied visual content of the web page itself.
  • Technical Importance: This approach creates a personalized, two-part verification system intended to be more robust than static visual indicators, as a fraudster would need to replicate not only the website's appearance but also the specific server-key and client-preference interaction. (Compl. ¶14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 9 and dependent Claim 11 (Compl. ¶14, ¶23, ¶26).
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 9 include:
    • storing at least one authenticity stamp in a preferences file located in a file location;
    • creating, by one or more designated servers, an authenticity key with information to locate the preferences file;
    • receiving a request for a web page from a client computer;
    • creating formatted data for the web page;
    • receiving a request for the authenticity key;
    • sending the formatted data to the client;
    • providing the authenticity key for processing to determine the file location;
    • processing the key to determine the file location;
    • locating and retrieving the authenticity stamp from the preferences file; and
    • enabling the authenticity stamp to be displayed.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims but states infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶26).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not specifically name any accused products. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are allegedly detailed in claim charts incorporated as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶26, ¶28). However, Exhibit 2 was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not describe the functionality of the accused products. Based on the infringement allegations against the method claims of the ’863 Patent, the accused instrumentality is a system or method for authenticating web pages (Compl. ¶13-14). No allegations regarding the products' commercial importance are provided.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed in the ’863 Patent and incorporates by reference claim charts from an exhibit that was not provided (Compl. ¶28-29). In lieu of a claim chart, the complaint’s narrative allegations suggest the following infringement theory for Claim 9: the Defendant's system creates a "distributed authentication architecture where authenticity verification relies on the coordination between server-generated keys and client-stored preferences" (Compl. ¶14). The complaint contends this architecture meets the claim limitations of "storing at least one authenticity stamp in a preferences file" and "creating, by one or more designated servers, an authenticity key with information to locate the preferences file," which makes it difficult for fraudsters to replicate (Compl. ¶14, ¶18-19). The subsequent steps of providing and processing the key are alleged to meet the limitations for retrieving and displaying the user-specific authentication elements (Compl. ¶20).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the components of the accused system fall within the scope of the patent's claim terms. For instance, a central question could be whether the Defendant's mechanism for storing user data constitutes a "preferences file" as contemplated by the patent, and whether its server-client communication protocol involves an "authenticity key with information to locate the preferences file" (’863 Patent, Claim 9).
  • Technical Questions: A primary evidentiary question will be what the "Exemplary Defendant Products" actually do. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of how the accused products allegedly perform the distinct, multi-step method of Claim 9, which requires a specific sequence of creating, sending, providing, and processing keys and files between a server and a client.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Key Term: "authenticity stamp"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the user-facing indicator of authenticity. Its construction is critical because if it is construed narrowly, the accused system's verification indicator may not infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s examples are specific (e.g., a custom "SEAL OF APPROVAL"), while modern authentication might use more generic indicators.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not limit the form of the "stamp." The specification suggests it can be "graphics only, text only or a combination thereof" and can even be "audio instead of or in addition to visual" (’863 Patent, col. 4:20-26), which may support a broader definition covering various types of indicators.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the stamp as being personally configured by the user, who "can specify the appearance," "defines the authenticity stamps," and will "expect to see his or her stamp" (’863 Patent, col. 4:12-13, col. 8:5-9). This emphasis on user-customization could support a narrower construction that excludes standardized or system-generated indicators.

Key Term: "preferences file"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the client-side storage component of the claimed distributed system. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused system's method of storing client-side data meets this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims require only that the stamp be stored "in a preferences file located in a file location" (’863 Patent, Claim 9), which could arguably encompass modern data storage methods like browser local storage or cookies, not just a traditional file.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific embodiment where "the preferences file is placed in a random directory to help obscure the location" and that this "increases the difficulty in creating a general purpose rogue program for extracting preferences and keys" (’863 Patent, col. 11:65–col. 12:5). This security-focused description of an obscured, distinct file may support a narrower construction.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.

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

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can key terms from the patent—such as "authenticity stamp" and "preferences file," which are described in the context of user-customized icons and distinct client-side files—be construed broadly enough to read on the architecture of the Defendant’s modern web authentication system?
  2. A second issue will be evidentiary and technical alignment: As the complaint lacks specific details about the accused products, a central question will be whether discovery reveals that the Defendant's system actually performs the specific, distributed method of Claim 9, particularly the coordination between a server generating an "authenticity key" and a client processing that key to locate and retrieve data from a separate "preferences file."