DCT

4:25-cv-02914

Authentixx LLC v. Texags

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:25-cv-02914, S.D. Tex., 06/23/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Southern District of Texas and committing alleged acts of patent infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to methods and systems for authenticating electronic content, such as web pages, to verify their origin for a user.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses online security risks like phishing by providing a system to embed a verifiable authenticity marker into web content, allowing a user's computer to confirm the content is from a legitimate source.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of an application that matured into U.S. Patent No. 9,843,447 and claims priority back to a 1999 provisional application. The patent-in-suit was issued subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term to that of the parent patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-09-09 '863 Patent Priority Date
2017-12-08 Application for '863 Patent Filed
2019-07-16 '863 Patent Issued
2025-06-23 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.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of online fraud where malicious actors copy the look and feel of legitimate websites (e.g., logos, icons) or use deceptively similar URLs to trick consumers into revealing personal information, a practice commonly known as phishing. Consumers lack a reliable method to confirm that the web page they are viewing is authentic. (’863 Patent, col. 1:25-40).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a multi-component system to solve this problem. When a user requests a web page, the request is routed through an authentication server. This server retrieves the requested page, inserts a unique "authenticity stamp" or "authenticity key" into it, and then sends the modified page to the user. The user's computer, equipped with special software (e.g., a browser plug-in), can then verify this stamp to confirm the page's authenticity before displaying it. (’863 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:12-22). The system architecture involves a client computer, a web server, and a distinct authentication server that modifies content in real-time. (’863 Patent, Fig. 4).
  • Technical Importance: The described method provides a form of user-facing, content-level authentication that operates independently of transport-layer security protocols like HTTPS, aiming to give users a direct visual cue about the trustworthiness of the content itself. (’863 Patent, col. 1:63-65; col. 3:41-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims without specifying them, referring to them as the “Exemplary ’863 Patent Claims” (Compl. ¶¶11, 13). Independent claim 1 is representative of the method claims.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
    • storing an "authenticity stamp" in a "preferences file" in a location accessible by designated servers
    • creating an "authenticity key" with information to locate the preferences file
    • at a server, receiving a request for a web page from a client
    • at the server, creating formatted data for the web page
    • at the server, receiving a request for the authenticity key
    • sending the formatted data to the client
    • providing the authenticity key for "manipulation" to determine the file location
    • "manipulating" the key to find the file, locating the file, and retrieving the stamp
    • enabling the display of the authenticity stamp with the web page on the client computer
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products, methods, or services. It refers generally to "Defendant products" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶¶11, 13). This exhibit was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement allegations are contained entirely within "charts comparing the Exemplary '863 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" in an exhibit that was referenced but not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶13-14). The narrative alleges that Defendant directly infringes by making, using, selling, or importing the accused products, and also by having its employees internally test and use them (Compl. ¶¶11-12). Without the referenced exhibit, a detailed analysis of the infringement theory is not possible.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patent claims and the general nature of the technology, several points of contention may arise.

  • Architectural Questions: A central question will be whether the accused system possesses the specific three-part architecture described in the patent, involving a client computer, a web server, and a separate authentication server that dynamically inserts authenticity markers into content. (’863 Patent, Fig. 4). The analysis will question whether the accused functionality is performed by a single server or distributed in the manner claimed.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the scope of key claim terms. For example, does the accused system generate an "authenticity key" that contains "information to locate the preferences file" as required by the claims, and is there a "preferences file" stored in a location "accessible by one or more designated servers" yet also resident on the user's machine? (’863 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Functional Questions: An evidentiary dispute may arise over whether the accused system performs the specific claimed steps of a client-side module "manipulating" a key provided by a server to locate a file and retrieve a stamp for display. (’863 Patent, Claim 1).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "authenticity stamp"

    • Context and Importance: This term is the core user-facing element of the invention. Its construction is critical because it defines what must be retrieved and displayed to the user. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition—whether it is simply a static image, a user-configurable icon, or a dynamic element like a fractal or personal account information—will determine the breadth of the claim.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the stamp in various ways, suggesting flexibility. It can be a "diamond shape, which includes text," graphics, audio, or a combination. (’863 Patent, col. 3:13-25). This could support a construction covering any visual or audible indicator of authenticity.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes highly specific embodiments, such as a "computer-generated fractal design" or a stamp comprising "personal information relating to the user's account" that is "known only by the sender and the recipient." (’863 Patent, col. 3:45-53; col. 3:62-65). This language could support a narrower construction requiring the stamp to have unique, non-trivial, or dynamically generated properties.

  • The Term: "preferences file"

    • Context and Importance: The location and accessibility of this file are recited in the claims and are central to the claimed security method. The infringement analysis will depend on whether an accused system has a corresponding file with the claimed characteristics.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 requires only that the file be in a "file location accessible by one or more designated servers." (’863 Patent, col. 14:48-50). This could be interpreted broadly to mean any location that a server can, in theory, access.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states the file is stored on the "user's 110 file system" and that its location is "not readily known" and placed in a "random directory to help obscure the location." (’863 Patent, col. 6:38-40; col. 11:64-66). This suggests the file is client-side and intentionally hidden, potentially supporting a narrower construction that excludes purely server-side databases.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement or allege any facts related to pre-suit knowledge by the Defendant. The prayer for relief includes a request for a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is a standard request. (Compl. p.4, ¶E.i).

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

  1. Sufficiency of the Pleadings: Given that the complaint's core infringement allegations are entirely incorporated by reference from an unfiled external document, a preliminary issue may be whether the complaint meets the plausibility standard for pleading patent infringement under Federal Circuit precedent.
  2. Claim Construction of System Architecture: The case will likely hinge on the construction of the system's required components. A key question for the court will be one of definitional scope: does the claimed architecture—requiring a client-side "preferences file", a server-generated "authenticity key" used to locate it, and a multi-server infrastructure—read on the Defendant's system, or is there a fundamental mismatch in how the accused technology is architected?
  3. Evidentiary Proof of Function: A central evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what proof can be offered to show that the accused product performs the specific, multi-step process of dynamically generating, inserting, and validating an "authenticity stamp" as recited in the claims, particularly the client-side steps of receiving and "manipulating" a key to find and display the stamp.