EasyWeb Innovations LLC v. Action Verb LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: EasyWeb Innovations, LLC (New York)
  • Defendant: Action Verb LLC d/b/a Files.com (Nevada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hecht Partners LLP
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01261, W.D. Tex., 10/18/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a physical office in Austin, its CEO is a resident of Austin, and it advertises for on-site positions in Austin.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Files.com cloud storage platform infringes a patent related to user-selectable, multi-level computer security by offering users an individual choice between different authentication methods.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue is user authentication for computer systems, a fundamental aspect of data security for modern cloud-based services.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during prosecution, the asserted patent overcame a patent-eligibility rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by arguing that providing per-user selectable security schemes was a concrete technical improvement over the then-conventional approach of a single, system-wide security policy.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,114,905 - "Individual User Selectable Multi-Level Authorization Method for Accessing a Computer System"

• Issued: October 30, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint asserts that at the time of the invention, computer access security systems were typically rigid, offering a single authentication method that was administered system-wide, which forced all users into the same security protocol regardless of their individual needs (Compl. ¶18).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a computer system that supports multiple security schemes, where the schemes differ in the amount of identification information required for access. It allows each user on the system to independently select a preferred security scheme, which is then stored in that specific user's account data and used to govern their future access, separate from the choices of other users (’905 Patent, Abstract; col. 45:10-38).
• Technical Importance: This approach gives individual users control over the balance between security strength and convenience for their own account, a departure from the one-size-fits-all security models alleged to be conventional at the time (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 19).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-20, which includes independent claims 1, 9, and 18 (Compl. ¶40).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • Providing a plurality of security schemes, where a first scheme requires a “specific number” of identification items and a second scheme requires “additional identification information beyond that of the first scheme.”
  • Prompting a user to select a scheme.
  • Storing the user’s selection as a preference in the “particular user’s storage area.”
  • Authorizing access only when the selected scheme is satisfied.
• Independent Claim 9 (Method):
  • Providing a plurality of security schemes, where a first scheme requires one number of identification items and a second scheme requires a “different number” of identification items.
  • Prompting a first user for a selection and storing it in the first user’s storage area.
  • Prompting a second user for a selection and storing it in the second user’s storage area.
  • Authorizing each user’s access based on their respective, independently selected scheme.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶40).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The Files.com service, a platform for secure document storage, file sharing, and collaboration (Compl. ¶¶ 26-27).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused functionality is the platform's user authentication system (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 32). The complaint alleges that Files.com allows each user to select between at least two security schemes: a standard scheme requiring a username and password, and a more secure scheme requiring two-factor authentication (2FA) (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 34-35).
• The complaint provides a screenshot of a user interface titled "Select your preferred 2FA method," which presents radio buttons for multiple 2FA options like "Yubikey U2F/FIDO" and "Authenticator App (TOTP)" (Compl. ¶30, p. 11). This interface is alleged to be the mechanism through which users select their desired security scheme (Compl. ¶¶ 30, 32).
• Another screenshot from the Defendant's website is provided, which states its service includes "four types of two-factor authentication" (Compl. ¶28).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’905 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The patent specification is heavily focused on technologies from its 1999 priority date, such as publishing messages via fax and telephone. A central question may be whether the term "security scheme", rooted in that context, can be construed to cover modern authentication protocols like 2FA for a cloud storage platform.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that a user’s selection is stored "in the particular user's storage area" (Compl. ¶33). This is pleaded on "information and belief." An evidentiary question is what proof will show that the accused system's architecture meets this specific limitation, as opposed to, for example, using a global configuration database with a flag for each user's account.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "security scheme"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of the claims. Its construction will determine whether the patent's scope is broad enough to cover the modern 2FA technologies offered by the accused product. Practitioners may focus on this term because of the technological gap between the patent's 1999 priority date and the accused product.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the term generically without limiting it to a specific technology. The abstract describes providing "user customizable security to the computer system," which suggests a broad principle (’905 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description extensively discusses embodiments related to publishing fax, audio, and email messages (’905 Patent, col. 18:40-22:45). A party could argue that these specific contexts limit the plausible scope of "security scheme" to the types of access controls relevant to those dated technologies.

• The Term: "storing the selection as a preference in the particular user's storage area"

  • Context and Importance: This term dictates a specific architectural requirement for infringement. The dispute may turn on whether the accused system's method of saving a user's 2FA setting meets this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses phrases like "user's storage area" and "account information of the particular user" interchangeably, which could support an interpretation that any persistent data record associated with a user account satisfies the limitation (’905 Patent, Abstract; col. 45:34-35).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that "the particular user's storage area" implies a partitioned, user-specific data location, as distinct from a centralized system-wide database that may contain settings for all users. The repetition of "particular user" could be argued to emphasize a segregated, user-centric storage location.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Files.com provides customers with "instructions, documentation, ... product manuals, advertisements, and online documentation" that instruct and encourage users to enable the allegedly infringing 2FA features (Compl. ¶44).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of willful infringement, asserting that Defendant acts with "knowledge of the 905 Patent and with the intent, or willful blindness, that the induced acts directly infringe" (Compl. ¶44). The complaint does not allege specific facts demonstrating pre-suit knowledge.

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

• A core issue will be one of claim scope and validity: Given that the patent was allowed by distinguishing its per-user customizability from the "system-wide" security schemes of the 1999 era, can its claims be validly construed to cover modern, widely adopted authentication methods like 2FA without also covering what may now be considered conventional and abstract security practices?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Does the Files.com platform's method of saving a user’s authentication preference meet the specific claim requirement of "storing the selection as a preference in the particular user's storage area," or does discovery a fundamental mismatch in the system's architecture?