DCT

6:23-cv-00238

Authentixx LLC v. Bank & Trust

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00238, W.D. Tex., 04/03/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because the Defendant, a Texas corporation, maintains an established place of business in the district and allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online banking services infringe patents related to systems and methods for authenticating electronic content to verify its origin and prevent fraud.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the field of cybersecurity, specifically methods for providing users with a visual or data-driven confirmation that a website or email is from a legitimate source, thereby combating phishing and online impersonation.
  • Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent 7,631,191, one of the two patents-in-suit, was the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR2014-00475). The resulting IPR certificate, issued February 23, 2018, cancelled all of the patent’s original claims (1-23 and 25-32), a fact that may be dispositive regarding its assertion in this litigation. U.S. Patent 10,355,863 is subject to a terminal disclaimer.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-09-09 Earliest Priority Date for '863 and '191 Patents
2009-12-08 U.S. Patent 7,631,191 Issued
2018-02-23 IPR Certificate Issued Cancelling All Claims of '191 Patent
2019-07-16 U.S. Patent 10,355,863 Issued
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"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the risk of online fraud stemming from the ease with which corporate logos and other identifying icons can be copied for use on fraudulent websites or in "phishing" emails, as well as the ease of registering deceptively similar domain names to trick consumers. (’863 Patent, col. 1:24-40).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a web server, upon receiving a request for a page, passes the content to a dedicated "authentication server." This server inserts an "authenticity key" into the content before it is sent to the user. The user's computer, equipped with special software (e.g., a browser plug-in), uses this key to verify the page's origin and displays a user-configured "authenticity stamp" (e.g., a "seal of approval" image) to confirm it is legitimate. (’863 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:13-30; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: The described approach provides a client-side, visual method for content authentication that operates separately from standard transport-level security protocols like HTTPS. (’863 Patent, col. 4:41-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • 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 designated 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 corresponding to the requested web page;
    • receiving a request for the authenticity key;
    • sending the formatted data and providing the authenticity key to the client computer;
    • manipulating the authenticity key at the client to determine the file location of the preferences file;
    • locating and retrieving the authenticity stamp from the preferences file; and
    • enabling the authenticity stamp to be displayed on the client computer’s display.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers to "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶12).

U.S. Patent No. 7,631,191 - "System and method for authenticating a web page"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a user's lack of confidence in the authenticity of a website due to the ability of third parties to copy icons and create fraudulent web pages that appear genuine. (’191 Patent, col. 1:20-40).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system architecture functionally similar to the '863 Patent. A user requests a web page, which is processed by a web server and an authentication server. The authentication server embeds an "authenticity key" into the page, which is then verified by software on the user's computer to confirm the page's authenticity before displaying it with a pre-defined stamp. (’191 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-65).
  • Technical Importance: This patent, which shares a common priority claim with the '863 Patent, discloses an early-generation technical framework for client-side visual authentication of web content. (’191 Patent, col. 2:40-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims of the '191 Patent." (Compl. ¶18). However, a Certificate of Correction for Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00475, attached to the patent, states that claims 1-23 and 25-32 are cancelled. (’191 Patent, IPR Certificate, p. 2). The remaining claims are dependent on the cancelled claims. The complaint does not address the cancellation of all asserted claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify any specific accused product or service by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" detailed in claim charts that were not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶12, ¶18). The defendant is a bank, suggesting the accused instrumentalities are its online banking website, mobile applications, and/or related electronic communications.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Defendant's products "practice the technology claimed by the '863 Patent" and the '191 Patent. (Compl. ¶14, ¶23). This implies that the accused instrumentalities incorporate a system for authenticating electronic content to users. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for further analysis of the accused functionality or its market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits (Exhibits 3 and 4) to detail its infringement allegations; however, these exhibits were not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶14, ¶23). The analysis below is based on the narrative allegations. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • '863 Patent Infringement Allegations
    • The complaint alleges that the Defendant directly infringes by making, using, selling, and/or importing products that practice the technology of the '863 Patent, as well as by having its employees internally test and use these products. (Compl. ¶12-13). Without the referenced claim charts, the specific factual basis for how the accused products meet each claim element is not provided in the complaint.
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the Defendant's security architecture, if any is found to exist, constitutes the specific multi-entity system recited in the claims, which requires distinct actions by "one or more designated servers" (implying a separate authentication server) and a client computer manipulating an "authenticity key" to locate a local "preferences file."
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the Defendant's system uses an "authenticity key" for the specific claimed purpose of locating a client-side preferences file, as opposed to using other standard security tokens (e.g., session cookies, API keys) for different authentication or authorization purposes?
  • '191 Patent Infringement Allegations
    • The complaint alleges direct infringement by making, using, and selling infringing products, as well as induced infringement. (Compl. ¶18, ¶22).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Validity Questions: The primary point of contention for the '191 Patent is not factual infringement, but its legal status. Given that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cancelled all asserted claims in IPR2014-00475, a threshold question for the court will be whether any enforceable claim exists to be infringed. The decision to assert a patent with no remaining valid claims raises significant questions about the basis for this count.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'863 Patent

  • The Term: "authenticity key"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears central to the claimed invention, representing the data transmitted from the server to the client to enable the verification process. Its construction will determine whether the claim reads on a wide range of security tokens or is limited to the specific implementation described in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The summary describes the invention broadly as a server that "inserts an authenticity key into the web page," which the user's computer logic verifies. (’863 Patent, col. 2:16-22). This could support construing the term to cover various forms of digital signatures or tokens.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description discloses an "exemplary authenticity key" as a "hidden signature object" comprising a specific combination of fields: "web page hash, action, date/time, key identifier and digital signature." (’863 Patent, col. 10:47-54). This detailed embodiment may support a narrower construction limited to such a multi-part object.
  • The Term: "preferences file"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the client-side data store that holds the user-defined "authenticity stamp." The construction of this term is critical because the "authenticity key" is explicitly claimed as containing "information to locate" this file.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims require a "preferences file located in a file location." (’863 Patent, col. 14:47-49). This could be argued to encompass any form of local storage, including browser cookies or application-specific data stores.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the preferences file as being stored in a "random directory to help obscure the location" and suggests it is encrypted, implying a more robust and secure file structure than a standard browser cookie. (’863 Patent, col. 11:63-col. 12:4).

'191 Patent

  • Analysis of claim terms for the '191 Patent is not presented, as all of its claims were cancelled in IPR2014-00475, rendering questions of their construction moot for the purposes of an infringement analysis.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the '191 Patent. The alleged basis is that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users to use the accused products in a manner that infringes. (Compl. ¶21).
  • Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not use the term "willful," it alleges that Defendant has "actual knowledge" of the '191 Patent at least from the date the complaint was served and "actively, knowingly, and intentionally" continued to induce infringement. (Compl. ¶20, ¶22). This forms a basis for post-suit enhancement of damages. The prayer for relief also requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285. (Compl. ¶26.H.i).

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

  • A primary issue for the case will be one of patent viability: can the infringement claim for the ’191 Patent proceed when a prior Inter Partes Review resulted in the cancellation of all of its asserted claims, and what are the implications for bringing such a claim?
  • A key evidentiary question for the ’863 Patent will be one of architectural mapping: as the complaint lacks specific factual allegations, the case will depend on what discovery reveals about the Defendant's system architecture and whether that architecture practices the specific multi-server, client-side-plugin process recited in the claims.
  • The dispute over the '863 Patent may also turn on a question of definitional scope: can the term "authenticity key," as used in the patent, be construed broadly to cover modern security tokens, or is it limited by the specification to the bespoke, multi-part data object described in the patent's specific embodiments?