DCT

6:22-cv-01100

AttestWave LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:22-cv-01100, W.D. Tex., 10/24/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the Western District of Texas and committing alleged acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain of Defendant's products and services infringe a patent related to managing and validating trusted data flows in computer networks.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses network security and quality of service by using a cryptographic system to verify that software on an end-user's device is complying with predefined rules of transmission.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-03-16 U.S. Patent No. 7,305,704 Earliest Priority Date
2007-12-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,305,704 Issue Date
2022-10-24 Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7305704, “Management of trusted flow system,” issued December 4, 2007.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes fundamental problems with TCP/IP data networks, such as their vulnerability to denial-of-service attacks and unstable throughput, which stem from an inability to enforce proper behavior on end-user stations (’704 Patent, col. 1:16-24). In software-based networks, a user has access to the very software responsible for regulating their own behavior, creating a trust deficit (’704 Patent, col. 2:37-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to create and validate a "trusted flow" of data packets. This is achieved through two main components: a "Trusted Flow Generator" (TFG) on the end-station and a "Trusted Tag Checker" (TTC) at a network interface, such as a firewall. The TFG "interlocks" the correct, rule-abiding operation of a software program (e.g., a TCP protocol stack) with the generation of a difficult-to-forge "security tag" that is attached to data packets. The TTC, which knows how the tags should be generated, checks for their validity. A valid tag assures the network that the end-station is behaving properly, allowing that data flow to be trusted and potentially prioritized (’704 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-23; FIG. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides a method for establishing trust and enabling quality-of-service differentiation in open networks by verifying endpoint compliance at a network checkpoint, rather than having to trust the endpoint directly (’704 Patent, col. 1:25-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims without specifying them, but a representative independent claim is Claim 1 (a system claim) (’704 Patent, col. 40:44-41:20).
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
    • A "trusted flow generator (TFG) subsystem" at a remote location that executes trusted software.
    • A "validating location" with a "trusted tag checker (TTC) subsystem."
    • The TFG subsystem "locally generates a sequence of security tags" based on "compliance logic" that is responsive to the "proper execution" of the software module.
    • A communications network coupling the TFG and TTC subsystems.
    • The TTC subsystem provides for validating the proper execution of the remote software by comparing the security tags it receives from the TFG against security tags it generates locally.
  • The complaint implicitly reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶12).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products in its main body. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in an "Exhibit B" attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶12). This exhibit was not publicly available with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused products. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '704 Patent" (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that it incorporates claim charts in an Exhibit B, which was not available for review (Compl. ¶12, ¶18). Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The infringement theory articulated in the complaint is that Defendant directly infringes by making, using, and selling the "Exemplary Defendant Products" and that these products satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶12, ¶17).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions: As the complaint lacks specific factual allegations mapping product features to claim limitations, a primary point of contention will be the evidence Plaintiff proffers to demonstrate that the unnamed accused products contain the functionalities of the claimed "TFG subsystem" and "TTC subsystem".
    • Scope Questions (Means-Plus-Function): The claims recite "subsystems" (e.g., "TFG subsystem", "TTC subsystem") that are defined by the functions they perform. A central legal question may be whether these terms should be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as means-plus-function limitations. If the court determines they are, their scope would be limited to the specific structures and algorithms disclosed in the patent specification for performing those functions (e.g., the flowcharts in FIGS. 8 and 9) and their equivalents. This could significantly narrow the scope of the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "security tags"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core piece of information used to validate compliance. The definition will be critical for determining whether any signal or data generated by an accused product meets this limitation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general, and Claim 1 describes it functionally as being generated "responsive to compliance logic" (’704 Patent, cl. 1). This could support an argument that any data structure serving this validation purpose qualifies.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of what a security tag comprises, such as a "Security Tag Vector - STV" and a "Security Tag Serial Number - STSN" (’704 Patent, FIG. 7B; col. 15:40-47). A party may argue the term should be limited to these disclosed embodiments or structures with similar components.

  • The Term: "compliance logic"

  • Context and Importance: This logic is the linchpin connecting the generation of a "security tag" to the "proper execution" of software. The interpretation of this term will dictate what kind of client-side behavior must be verified for infringement to occur.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 defines the term functionally, requiring it to generate tags "responsive only to proper execution of each said respective software module" (’704 Patent, cl. 1).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses compliance in the context of conforming to specific "rules of transmission," such as TCP window size limitations (’704 Patent, col. 2:3-6). This could support a narrower construction requiring adherence to predefined network protocol parameters, not merely general correct operation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant's "product literature and website materials" instruct and encourage end users to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’704 Patent (Compl. ¶15). Knowledge and intent are alleged to exist at least from the date of service of the complaint (Compl. ¶16).
  • Willful Infringement: The basis for willfulness is alleged continued infringement after Defendant gained "actual knowledge" of the ’704 Patent and its alleged infringement upon service of the complaint (Compl. ¶14, ¶15).

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

  • A primary evidentiary challenge will be one of specification and proof: Given the absence of factual detail in the complaint, a key question is what specific products are accused and what technical evidence Plaintiff will introduce to demonstrate that those products implement the distinct "TFG" and "TTC" architecture required by the patent’s claims.
  • A core legal issue will be one of claim scope and construction: The case may turn on whether key terms like "TFG subsystem" and "TTC subsystem" are determined to be means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Such a finding would tie the claim scope to the specific algorithms disclosed in the patent, potentially creating a high bar for proving that Defendant’s products infringe.