AttestWave LLC v. Intel Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: AttestWave LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Intel Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-01108, W.D. Tex., 10/25/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe a patent related to a system for managing and verifying trusted data flows in computer networks.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses network security and performance by creating a system to verify that software sending data packets is behaving correctly and has not been modified.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,305,704, "Management of trusted flow system," issued December 4, 2007.
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies inherent problems in TCP/IP networks, such as vulnerability to denial-of-service attacks and unstable throughput, which arise because users have access to and can modify the software that regulates their own network transmissions (’704 Patent, col. 1:21-23, col. 2:34-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to ensure "trusted operation" by verifying that end-station software is behaving according to predefined rules (’704 Patent, col. 1:30-34). It describes a two-part architecture: a "Trusted Flow Generator" (TFG) on the client side and a "Trusted Tag Checker" (TTC) at a network interface. The TFG "interlocks" the generation of data packets with an unpredictable "security tag." The TTC, knowing the secret logic for tag generation, validates the tag on each packet. A valid tag indicates the client software is authentic and compliant, allowing the packet to be trusted and potentially receive premium service (’704 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides a method for enforcing network policies and quality of service by validating the integrity and behavior of the source software itself, rather than merely reacting to traffic patterns.
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’704 Patent, without specifying them (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is a representative system claim.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Means for validating proper execution of software modules via a flow of "security tags."
    • A "trusted flow generator (TFG) subsystem" at a remote location that locally generates a sequence of security tags responsive to "compliance logic."
    • A "validating location" with a "trusted tag checker (TTC) sub-system."
    • A "communications network" coupling the TFG and TTC.
  • The complaint does not foreclose the possibility of asserting additional independent or dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in an incorporated Exhibit B (Compl. ¶12). However, Exhibit B was not filed with the complaint.
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality or market context. It alleges generally that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '704 Patent" (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts included as Exhibit B (Compl. ¶17, 18). As this exhibit was not provided, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The complaint’s narrative infringement theory is limited to the conclusory statement that Defendant's products satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: As the complaint lacks specificity, a primary issue will be what evidence Plaintiff adduces to show that specific Intel products or services contain the two-part "Trusted Flow Generator" and "Trusted Tag Checker" architecture required by the patent.
  • Scope Questions (Means-Plus-Function): Claim 1 is drafted using "means-plus-function" language (e.g., "means for validating"). The scope of these claim elements will be limited to the corresponding structures disclosed in the patent's specification and their equivalents. A central dispute will likely involve defining those structures (e.g., the specific "Trusted Tag Checker" logic shown in Figure 9) and determining whether the accused Intel products contain equivalent structures.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "means for validating proper execution of respective software modules" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and its construction will be critical for determining the scope of the claimed system. The analysis will focus on identifying the corresponding structure in the specification that performs the "validating" function.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party seeking a broader scope might argue that the function of "validating" should be construed generally, though any interpretation must still be anchored to the disclosed structure.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific corresponding structure: the "Trusted Tag Checker (TTC)" (’704 Patent, Fig. 1). The operation of the TTC is detailed as a process that includes receiving a packet, performing service mapping, and checking the Security Tag Vector (STV) and Security Tag Serial Number (STSN) (’704 Patent, Fig. 9). A party may argue the claim scope is limited to this disclosed algorithm and its structural equivalents.

• The Term: "security tags" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is fundamental to the invention, as the generation and checking of these tags is the core of the claimed validation method.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that "security tags" should encompass any form of data appended to a packet for authentication or behavioral verification purposes.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, such as a "Security Tag Vector - STV" and a "Security Tag Serial Number - STSN" (’704 Patent, col. 16:39-41, Fig. 7B). It further describes these tags as being generated by a "pseudo random tag generator" to be "unpredictable by observers" (’704 Patent, col. 16:18-24, Fig. 10). This suggests the term requires more than a simple identifier and implies a specific cryptographic and unpredictable nature.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users to operate its products in a manner that infringes the ’704 Patent (Compl. ¶15). It also alleges Defendant sells products to customers for use in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶16).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on knowledge of the ’704 Patent and infringement obtained upon service of the complaint and its attached (but unfiled) claim charts (Compl. ¶14, 15). The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Given the complaint’s lack of factual detail, a central issue is what evidence Plaintiff will offer to prove that specific, identified Intel products actually perform the functions of both the client-side "Trusted Flow Generator" and the network-side "Trusted Tag Checker" as architected in the patent.
• A core issue will be one of claim scope: The case will likely turn on the construction of the patent's "means-plus-function" claim limitations. The dispositive question will be whether the scope of the "means for validating," when properly limited to the specific "Trusted Tag Checker" algorithms disclosed in the specification and their equivalents, is broad enough to read on the accused Intel technologies.