DCT

6:23-cv-00237

Authentixx LLC v. First United Bank

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00237, W.D. Tex., 04/03/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has an established place of business in the District and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes two patents related to methods for authenticating electronic content, such as web pages, to prevent fraud.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of online "phishing" and content spoofing, where malicious actors create fraudulent websites or emails that mimic legitimate ones to steal user information.
  • Key Procedural History: The provided documents include an Inter Partes Review (IPR) Certificate for U.S. Patent No. 7,631,191, resulting from IPR2014-00475. The certificate, issued February 23, 2018, states that claims 1-23 and 25-32 of the patent are cancelled. As a dependent claim cannot survive the cancellation of the independent claim from which it depends, this action appears to cancel all claims of the ’191 Patent. The complaint, filed in 2023, does not specify which claims of the ’191 Patent are asserted, raising a threshold question about the viability of the infringement count for this patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-09-09 Earliest Priority Date for ’863 and '191 Patents
2009-12-08 U.S. Patent No. 7,631,191 Issues
2018-02-23 IPR Certificate issues, cancelling claims of '191 Patent
2019-07-16 U.S. Patent No. 10,355,863 Issues
2023-04-03 Complaint Filed

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

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 describes the problem of consumers being defrauded by malicious web pages or emails that are designed to look authentic by copying corporate logos and other identifiers (’863 Patent, col. 1:24-41). Consumers lack confidence that the content they are viewing is from the true owner, and conventional security protocols like HTTPS do not solve the problem of visual spoofing (’863 Patent, col. 1:62-2:5).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where an authentication server inserts a unique, verifiable "authenticity marker" or "stamp" into electronic content (like a web page) before it is sent to the user (’863 Patent, Abstract). This stamp, which can be a visual icon, fractal design, or personalized information, is verified by logic on the user's computer (e.g., a browser plug-in), confirming for the user that the content is genuine (’863 Patent, col. 2:11-23; col. 3:34-44).
  • Technical Importance: This technology aimed to provide a user-visible layer of security, distinct from transport-layer encryption, to combat the rise of phishing attacks that exploit user trust in visual branding.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts one or more claims of the patent without specifying them (Compl. ¶12). Independent claims include 1, 9, and 18.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method):
    • storing at least one authenticity stamp in a preferences file located in a file location accessible by one or more designated servers;
    • creating, by the servers, an authenticity key with information to locate the preferences file;
    • receiving a request from a client computer for a web page;
    • creating formatted data for the web page;
    • 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 determine the file location;
    • locating and retrieving the authenticity stamp; and
    • enabling the stamp to be displayed with the formatted data.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶12).

U.S. Patent No. 7,631,191 - System and method for authenticating a web page, issued December 8, 2009

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the same core problem as the ’863 Patent: users cannot be confident that a web page is authentic, as icons and URLs can be easily copied or mimicked by "fraudsters" to deceive consumers (’191 Patent, col. 1:20-37).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where an authentication server intercepts a web page request, inserts an "authenticity key" into the page, and returns the modified page to the user (’191 Patent, Abstract). A browser plug-in on the user's computer then verifies this key and displays a pre-configured "authenticity stamp" to assure the user of the page's origin (’191 Patent, col. 4:1-12). The system separates the validation of the screen display from the security of the communication channel (’191 Patent, col. 2:45-50).
  • Technical Importance: This patent describes an early approach to providing client-side, visual confirmation of website authenticity to counter phishing and build user trust in online transactions.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts one or more claims without specification (Compl. ¶18). Independent claims include 1, 17, 29, and 31.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method):
    • transforming, at an authentication host computer, received data by inserting an authenticity key to create formatted data; and
    • returning the formatted data to enable the authenticity key to be retrieved and to locate a preferences file, from which an authenticity stamp is retrieved.
  • As noted in Section I, an IPR Certificate indicates all claims of the ’191 Patent have been cancelled, which presents a significant barrier to this infringement count (’191 Patent, IPR Certificate, p. 2).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, services, or methods by name (Compl. ¶¶12, 18). It refers generally to "the Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count below" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶¶12, 14, 18, 23). The referenced claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 3 and 4) were not provided 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 alleges direct infringement of the ’863 Patent and direct and induced infringement of the ’191 Patent (Compl. ¶¶12, 18, 22). The pleading states that infringement allegations are detailed in claim charts attached as Exhibits 3 and 4 (Compl. ¶¶14, 23). However, these exhibits were not included in the provided filings.

The complaint’s narrative allegations are conclusory, stating that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the [patents]" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary... Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶¶14, 23). Without the claim charts or a more detailed factual narrative, a substantive analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "authenticity stamp" (from ’863 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is the central element of the invention that is ultimately presented to the user to verify a web page's legitimacy. The definition of what constitutes an "authenticity stamp"—whether it must be a pre-configured visual icon, if it can be dynamic data, or if it requires a specific verification mechanism—will be critical to determining the scope of the claims and whether any accused functionality infringes.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the stamp can take many forms, including "graphics only, text only or a combination thereof," an audio signal, or even "personal information relating to the user's account" such as a last transaction amount, which is not purely a static visual icon (’863 Patent, col. 4:19-26, col. 5:1-6).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the stamp as a feature that the user personally "defines" and configures, such as a "user-selected keyword, color, etc." that the user "will expect to see" (’863 Patent, col. 8:6-14). This could support a narrower construction requiring that the stamp be a static, user-configured visual element stored in a "preferences file" on the client machine, rather than any form of server-provided dynamic data (’863 Patent, col. 14:46-51).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’191 Patent. The alleged basis for inducement is that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶21). The allegation of knowledge and intent is predicated on Defendant being served with the complaint and claim charts (Compl. ¶22).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly use the word "willful" in its infringement counts. However, the prayer for relief requests a judgment that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is often associated with findings of willful infringement or other litigation misconduct (Compl. ¶H.i). The factual basis for willfulness for the ’191 Patent is alleged to arise from continued infringement after receiving the complaint (Compl. ¶21).

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

  1. Viability of the ’191 Patent: A threshold issue for the court will be the legal status of the ’191 Patent. Given the 2018 IPR certificate indicating the cancellation of all claims, the plaintiff faces a significant challenge in establishing that it is asserting any valid and enforceable claim from this patent.

  2. Claim Scope and Construction: For the ’863 Patent, the case will likely turn on a question of definitional scope: how broadly will the court construe the term "authenticity stamp"? The outcome will depend on whether the term is limited to a user-configured, static visual icon stored in a local preferences file, or if it can encompass other forms of verification data provided by a server.

  3. Factual Sufficiency of Allegations: A key procedural question will be one of evidentiary basis: does the complaint, which lacks named accused products and relies entirely on missing exhibits for its infringement theory, meet federal pleading standards? The court may need to address whether the conclusory allegations, absent the incorporated claim charts, provide sufficient notice of the basis for the lawsuit.