DCT
1:22-cv-01334
Human Differential Intelligence LLC v. Cloudflare Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Human Differential Intelligence LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Cloudflare, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: DINOVO PRICE LLP
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01334, W.D. Tex., 12/20/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant Cloudflare maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of alleged infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s hCaptcha service, used for website security and bot mitigation, infringes patents related to pictorial, motion-based, and touch-based systems for distinguishing humans from computers.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue is CAPTCHA (Completely Automatic Public Turing Test to Tell Humans and Computers Apart), a widely used security measure to protect websites from automated software bots.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit. The claim of willful infringement is based on knowledge established by the filing of this lawsuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-06-27 | ’141 and ’861 Patents Priority Date |
| 2014-06-10 | U.S. Patent No. 8,752,141 Issue Date |
| 2015-11-24 | U.S. Patent No. 9,192,861 Issue Date |
| 2022-12-20 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,752,141 - "Methods for Presenting and Determining the Efficacy of Progressive Pictorial and Motion-Based Captchas," Issued June 10, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a need for more robust alternatives to conventional text-based CAPTCHAs, which were becoming increasingly vulnerable to automated attacks ('141 Patent, col. 2:40-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method for conducting a pictorial-based challenge where an electronic image is presented to a user in a "visual sequence that varies so that content is gradually revealed for the image over a first time period" ('141 Patent, col. 2:60-63). A user must correctly identify a concept associated with the image to pass the test ('141 Patent, Abstract). The system is also designed to measure the efficacy of these challenges by tracking the percentage of users who solve them correctly within a set time ('141 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The described method sought to create a more secure CAPTCHA by leveraging human cognitive strengths in image recognition, a task that is historically difficult for computer programs, especially when the image is revealed progressively or in a degraded form ('141 Patent, col. 2:40-57).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 ('Compl. ¶22).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Automatically electing an electronic image comprising imagery other than words.
- Associating the image with one or more concepts.
- Presenting the image and "progressively revealing information" over a time period.
- Automatically processing user responses to determine the accuracy of their guesses.
- Calculating a percentage of participants able to correctly identify the concepts within a predetermined time.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶22).
U.S. Patent No. 9,192,861 - "Motion, Orientation, and Touch-Based Captchas," Issued November 24, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for new types of CAPTCHA challenges that can leverage the unique sensor capabilities of modern portable computing devices ('861 Patent, col. 5:11-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a CAPTCHA method where a user must perform a "set of physical manipulation instructions" with a portable device, such as moving, rotating, or touching the screen in a specified manner ('861 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:11-24). The system verifies the user as human by processing "sensory data" from the device’s motion, orientation, or touch sensors to determine if the manipulations meet a required threshold ('861 Patent, col. 5:17-24).
- Technical Importance: This approach created a new category of CAPTCHA challenges intended to be difficult for bots to solve, as they require interaction with physical sensors that are typically absent from the server-based environments where bots operate ('861 Patent, col. 14:30-52).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶37).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Automatically electing a manipulation challenge for a user with a portable computing device, which includes a set of physical manipulation instructions.
- Automatically processing "sensory data" associated with the user's movements or manipulations of the device.
- Automatically determining if the user's actions meet a required threshold to satisfy the instructions.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶37).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is Cloudflare's hCaptcha service, which it implements on its own and its customers' websites as part of its content delivery network (CDN) and DDoS mitigation services (Compl. ¶14, ¶15).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The hCaptcha service is used to protect websites by distinguishing human users from automated bots before granting access to protected resources (Compl. ¶15).
- The complaint identifies two relevant functionalities. The first is an image-based challenge where a user is presented with a grid of images and instructed to select all tiles containing a specific "concept" (e.g., "chickens on a tree") (Compl. ¶17). The complaint notes that after a user selects the initial tiles and clicks "Next," an additional set of image tiles may be shown for further verification (Compl. ¶17). A two-panel screenshot from an hCaptcha demo shows a user selecting images of chickens from a grid, first with a 'Next' button and then with a 'Verify' button (Compl. p. 6).
- The second functionality involves an "I am human" checkbox, where the system analyzes the user's "mouse movements and click manipulation" to determine if they meet a "required threshold" to be deemed human (Compl. ¶18).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’141 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a. automatically electing an electronic image for a participant with a computing system, wherein said electronic image comprises a set of imagery data other than words... | Cloudflare's hCaptcha system automatically displays an image-based challenge consisting of a grid of image tiles. | ¶17 | col. 26:20-29 |
| b. associating said electronic image with one or more concepts; | The hCaptcha system instructs the user to select images containing a specified "concept," such as "chickens on a tree." | ¶17 | col. 26:30-31 |
| c. presenting said electronic image in said first image state and progressively revealing information over a first time period within an interface for said participant using said computing system; | The hCaptcha system first displays a 9-image grid; after the user makes selections and clicks "Next," an "additional 9-image tiles are then shown to the user" for further selection. | ¶17 | col. 26:32-38 |
| d. automatically processing responses from the participant... to correlate an accuracy of guesses from said participant for said one or more concepts associated with said electronic image; and | The system processes the user's tile selections and deems the responses either "accurate" or "inaccurate." | ¶17 | col. 26:39-44 |
| e. calculating a percentage of participants able to decode and accurately guess said one or more concepts within a predetermined time. | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶22 | col. 26:45-49 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question for claim construction is whether the accused system's presentation of a second, distinct grid of images after the first is completed constitutes "progressively revealing information" as required by claim 1(c). The patent specification provides examples of revealing a single image by gradually improving its resolution or filling in pixels, which may suggest a narrower interpretation than what the complaint alleges ('141 Patent, col. 3:62-4:10).
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product performs the meta-analytical step of "calculating a percentage of participants" who can solve the challenge, as required by claim 1(e)? The complaint makes a conclusory allegation but offers no specific facts to support this element, which appears directed at tuning the CAPTCHA's difficulty rather than verifying a single user.
’861 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a. automatically electing a manipulation challenge for a user with the portable computing device, wherein said manipulation challenge includes a set of physical manipulation instructions... | The hCaptcha system presents a checkbox labeled "I am human" and instructs the user to check the box. | ¶18 | col. 26:15-20 |
| b. automatically processing sensory data associated with user movements and/or manipulations of the portable computing device; and | The system processes the user's "mouse movements and click manipulation" when interacting with the checkbox. | ¶18 | col. 26:21-24 |
| c. automatically determining if said user movements and/or manipulations from the user meet a required threshold for satisfying said set of manipulation instructions... | The system determines if the user's "movements and/or manipulation" meet a "required threshold" to deem the user human and grant access. | ¶18 | col. 26:25-29 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central issue will be the construction of "sensory data associated with user movements and/or manipulations of the portable computing device." Does this term, which the patent specification heavily ties to motion, orientation, and touch sensors on a physically manipulated device ('861 Patent, col. 14:30-52), read on data from "mouse movements" that could occur on a stationary desktop computer?
- Technical Questions: Is the analysis of mouse cursor coordinates and click events technically equivalent to processing the type of "sensory data" (e.g., from accelerometers, gyroscopes) that forms the basis of the invention described in the ’861 patent?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "progressively revealing information" (’141 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The infringement reading for claim 1(c) of the ’141 patent depends on whether presenting a second, separate image challenge after a first one is resolved meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused functionality (two distinct grids) may not align with the patent's primary examples (gradual materialization of one image).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language could be argued to mean revealing information in successive steps or stages, which would cover the accused two-grid process.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes revealing a single image, for instance by filling in a canvas "randomly over time" ('141 Patent, Fig. 7, element 733) or by presenting an image with different levels of resolution or noise ('141 Patent, col. 2:26-28).
Term: "sensory data associated with user movements and/or manipulations of the portable computing device" (’861 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term's definition is critical to whether the ’861 patent covers the accused "I am human" checkbox functionality. The dispute will likely center on whether "sensory data" is limited to information from specialized motion/orientation sensors or if it can broadly include inputs like mouse movements.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that data from an optical mouse is a form of "sensory data" and that a laptop, a common platform for interacting with websites, is a "portable computing device."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is titled "Motion, Orientation, and Touch-Based Captchas" and the specification is replete with examples of processing data from motion sensors, orientation sensors, and compasses to detect physical device manipulation like rotation and shaking ('861 Patent, col. 14:30-52). This context suggests a narrower meaning tied to the physical handling of the device itself.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement against Cloudflare for providing the hCaptcha code and technology to its customers and for requiring end-users to perform the allegedly infringing steps to access websites (Compl. ¶26, ¶41). The factual basis cited includes Cloudflare’s provision of API keys and instructional materials on its developer websites (Compl. ¶16, ¶26).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Cloudflare had knowledge of the patents "at least as early as the date when HDI effected service of the Complaint" (Compl. ¶20). This allegation appears to support a claim for post-suit willfulness only, as no facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are provided.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "progressively revealing information" in the ’141 patent, which is described in embodiments as the gradual materialization of a single image, be construed to cover the accused method of presenting two separate and complete image grids in sequence?
- A second core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "sensory data" from a "portable computing device" in the ’861 patent, which is heavily contextualized by the patent's focus on physical motion and orientation sensors, be interpreted to encompass the analysis of mouse movements on what could be a stationary desktop computer?
- A central evidentiary question will be one of proof of practice: can the plaintiff demonstrate that the accused system performs the meta-analytical function of "calculating a percentage of participants able to decode" a challenge, as required by claim 1 of the ’141 patent, a step for which the complaint currently provides no specific factual support?