Authentixx LLC v. Hartman Newspapers LP

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Authentixx LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Hartman Newspapers, L.P. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 4:25-cv-02867, S.D. Tex., 06/19/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having an established place of business in the district and committing acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unspecified products and services offered by Defendant infringe a patent related to methods for authenticating electronic content, such as web pages, to verify their origin.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of phishing and online content spoofing by creating a system to embed and verify a unique authenticity marker in electronic content.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is part of a patent family that has been the subject of numerous post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), including Covered Business Method (CBM) reviews and Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) involving related patents. The extensive citation to these prior proceedings in the patent's file history suggests that claim scope and validity may have been previously scrutinized, which could provide context for future arguments in this case.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1999-09-09	'863 Patent Priority Date
2017-12-08	'863 Patent Application Filing Date
2019-07-16	'863 Patent Issue Date
2025-06-19	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,355,863, System and method for authenticating electronic content, issued July 16, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a digital environment where consumers lack confidence in the authenticity of web pages and emails. Malicious actors can easily copy corporate logos and create deceptively similar URLs to defraud consumers, a practice commonly known as "phishing." (’863 Patent, col. 1:24-51). There was a need for a reliable method to assure a user that the content they are viewing originates from the true, legitimate source. (’863 Patent, col. 2:5-10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-part system. First, when a user requests content (like a web page), a web server forwards the content to an "authentication server." This server inserts a unique "authenticity key" into the content before it is sent to the user. Second, the user’s computer, equipped with special software (e.g., a browser plug-in), detects this key, verifies its authenticity, and then displays a pre-configured, user-defined "authenticity stamp" to signal that the content is legitimate. (’863 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:12-22). This process is illustrated in the system diagram in Figure 4, showing the interaction between the user (110), web server (120), and authentication server (140).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide a layer of security independent of the communication protocol (like SSL/HTTPS) by verifying the content itself, giving users a personalized and easily recognizable visual or audio cue of authenticity. (’863 Patent, col. 3:44-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention's core method.
• Independent Claim 1, Essential Elements:
  • storing at least one authenticity stamp in a preferences file located in a file location accessible by one or more designated servers;
  • creating, by the one or more designated servers, an authenticity key with information to locate the preferences file;
  • receiving a request from a client computer for the at least one web page;
  • creating, by the one or more designated servers, formatted data corresponding to the requested at least one web page;
  • receiving, at the one or more designated servers, a request for the authenticity key used to locate the preferences file;
  • sending the formatted data to the client computer;
  • providing the authenticity key for manipulation to determine the file location of the preferences file;
  • manipulating the authenticity key to determine the file location of the preferences file;
  • locating the preferences file in the file location;
  • retrieving the at least one authenticity stamp from the preferences file; and
  • enabling the at least one authenticity stamp to be displayed with a representation of the formatted data on a display of the client computer.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers generally to infringement of the patent's claims. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, method, or service by name. It refers generally to "Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" and "Exemplary Defendant Products." (Compl. ¶¶11, 12). These charts are included in an "Exhibit 2" which was not provided with the complaint. (Compl. ¶13).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of any accused instrumentality. It alleges that Defendant directly infringes by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products and by having its employees "internally test and use" them. (Compl. ¶¶11-12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s substantive infringement allegations are contained entirely within "charts comparing the Exemplary '863 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products," which are referenced as Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶13). As this exhibit was not filed with the complaint, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The narrative infringement theory is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '863 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '863 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶13).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Questions: The primary question is factual and evidentiary: what specific products are accused, and what is the evidence that they perform the multi-step authentication method claimed in the ’863 Patent? Without the referenced claim charts, the complaint lacks the specificity needed to evaluate any potential technical mismatch.
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute, once products are identified, may be whether they meet the architectural requirements of the claims. For example, does an accused system use "one or more designated servers" to both create an "authenticity key" and store an "authenticity stamp in a preferences file" that is "accessible" to those servers, as required by Claim 1?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "authenticity stamp"

• Context and Importance: This term is the ultimate user-facing output of the claimed method, serving as the signal of authenticity. Its definition is critical because it determines what form the proof of authentication must take. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether a generic security icon or browser-level notification in an accused system qualifies as the claimed "stamp."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the stamp is highly configurable and not limited to one form, stating 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. 4:19-26).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent emphasizes that the stamp is user-defined and personalized, stating "the user can specify the appearance of the authenticity stamp" and that the "determination of the look of the authenticity stamp is under complete control of the user." (’863 Patent, col. 4:12-14; col. 8:9-11). This could support a narrower construction requiring user-configurability, as opposed to a static, system-provided indicator.

• The Term: "preferences file"

• Context and Importance: This is the claimed location for storing the "authenticity stamp." The characteristics of this file—its location and accessibility—are central to the claim's architecture. The infringement analysis will depend on whether an accused system stores authentication-related data in a manner that meets the patent's description.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is generic. Claim 1 requires only that it be in a "file location accessible by one or more designated servers." This could arguably encompass a wide range of data storage mechanisms, such as a database record or a configuration file on a server.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific details suggesting an intent to make the file's location obscure for security. It states the file is "placed in a random directory to help obscure the location" and that the location is "not readily known" to the client-side plug-in, which must use an "authenticity key" to find it. (’863 Patent, col. 6:39-41; col. 12:1-4). This may support a narrower construction requiring a deliberately obfuscated storage location.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a count for indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a count for willful infringement or allege pre-suit knowledge by the Defendant. However, in the prayer for relief, Plaintiff requests a judgment that "this case be declared exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285." (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶E.i).

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint’s reliance on an unprovided exhibit leaves its factual basis for infringement entirely unstated. A key question will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that any of Defendant's systems perform the specific, two-sided architecture of the claims, involving both a server-side process for embedding a key and a distinct client-side process for verifying that key to display a stamp.
• The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: Can the term "authenticity stamp," as described in the patent with an emphasis on user-personalization, be construed to cover more generic, system-level security indicators that may be present in modern web applications?
• A final question will be one of architectural equivalence: Does the accused technology, once revealed, utilize a "preferences file" and an "authenticity key" in the manner described by the patent, or does it achieve a similar result through a technically distinct security architecture that falls outside the literal scope of the claims?