Touchpoint Projection Innovations LLC v. Forcepoint LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Touchpoint Projections Innovations, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Forcepoint LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 7:24-cv-00305, W.D. Tex., 11/26/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a "regular, physical, continuous, and established place of business" within the Western District of Texas and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Remote Browser Isolation (RBI) cybersecurity products infringe a patent related to securing network communications by remotely rendering web content and transmitting a safe version to the user.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue is remote browser isolation, a cybersecurity method that aims to protect end-users from web-based threats like malware by executing potentially malicious code in a remote, isolated environment rather than on the user's local device.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during prosecution, the U.S. Patent Examiner searched prior art in classifications related to network security and malware detection, and allowed the claims after citing three U.S. patents and twenty-nine U.S. patent applications.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-12-30	'712 Patent Priority Date
2015-08-25	'712 Patent Issued
2024-11-26	Complaint Filed

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

• U.S. Patent No. 9,118,712, "NETWORK COMMUNICATION SYSTEM WITH IMPROVED SECURITY," issued August 25, 2015
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the risk that users browsing the internet may encounter malware, even when visiting legitimate websites that have been compromised. Conventional anti-virus software may not be sufficient to protect against sophisticated or novel threats ('712 Patent, col. 1:24-36, col. 4:1-6).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes interposing a remote "security module" in the data path between a user's computer and the internet. This module intercepts the user's request, fetches the web content from the target server, and "renders and/or recontainerizes" it into a new, safe, browser-readable format. This safe format, described as an "interactive pixilated image" with potential layers for links or video, is then sent to the user's browser, isolating the user's computer from any original, potentially malicious executable code ('712 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:40-54).
    • Technical Importance: This architecture provides security by isolation rather than by detection, aiming to neutralize threats without needing to first identify them by a known signature, thereby offering protection against zero-day exploits ('712 Patent, col. 4:6-15).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, including at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶36).
    • Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following key steps:
      • Providing a software rendering application that is remote from the user computer.
      • Intercepting and proxying a command from the user's browser intended for an internet data source.
      • Receiving responsive data containing "original user functionality" from the data source.
      • "Automatically rendering... all received responsive data into an interactive pixilated image as a layer" such that "no original browser executable code will be executed at the user computer."
      • "Overlaying" the pixilated image data with a "secure browser readable code set layer" that includes interactive elements like a link, input field, video, or audio, and preserves the "original user functionality."
      • Sending the resulting browser readable code set to the user's browser.
    • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶36).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: Forcepoint Remote Browser Isolation (RBI) solution, also referred to as the "Accused Instrumentalities" and "Accused Services" (Compl. ¶30).
• Functionality and Market Context:
  • The complaint alleges that the Forcepoint RBI solution utilizes a "secure remote server as a virtual browser" that interacts with web content on the user's behalf (Compl. ¶30). The complaint asserts this process contains any harmful code within a "safe, isolated space," preventing it from reaching the user's device, and that this virtual environment is deleted at the end of each session (Compl. p. 8, ¶30).
  • To support its allegations of Defendant's presence in the judicial district, the complaint provides a screenshot of Forcepoint's website listing its corporate headquarters in Austin, Texas (Compl. ¶9, Fig. 1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that a claim chart demonstrating infringement of claim 1 is attached as Exhibit B; however, that exhibit was not included with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 37). The infringement theory, as described in the complaint's narrative, is that Forcepoint’s RBI products and services practice the method of the '712 patent. The complaint alleges that the RBI service, by using a remote server to load websites in an isolated virtual environment and delivering a safe representation of the content to the user, performs the claimed steps of remote rendering and isolation (Compl. ¶¶ 30, 35). The complaint alleges that this process satisfies all elements of at least claim 1 of the '712 patent (Compl. ¶37).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may be whether the data stream generated by the Forcepoint RBI product and sent to the end-user constitutes an "interactive pixilated image as a layer" as recited in the claim. The case may turn on whether this term is limited to a specific type of raster image or can be construed more broadly to cover other forms of remote display technologies, such as streaming Document Object Model (DOM) data.
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires that "no original browser executable code will be executed at the user computer." A key factual question will be whether the Accused Instrumentality transmits any original executable code (such as sanitized JavaScript) to the user's browser to enable interactivity. If it does, this may present a challenge to the Plaintiff's literal infringement theory for this negative limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "interactive pixilated image as a layer"

  • Context and Importance: This term is at the heart of the claimed invention, defining the secure data structure delivered to the user. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend heavily on whether the output of Forcepoint's RBI technology is found to fall within the scope of this term.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes rendering data to form a "new browser readable code set (for example, an xml page with CSS layers)," which suggests a structure more complex than a simple, flat image file ('712 Patent, Abstract). The "overlaying" step in Claim 1, which adds a "secure browser readable code set layer" with interactive elements, further supports a multi-layered, functional interpretation beyond a static picture ('712 Patent, col. 16:26-33).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification, in one example, describes a "rendered base image" as "basically a pixelated bitmap of a picture of the text" ('712 Patent, col. 8:5-6). A party could argue this language, combined with the common technical meaning of "pixilated," confines the term to raster graphics, distinguishing it from other web rendering techniques like vector graphics or DOM streaming.

• The Term: "no original browser executable code"

  • Context and Importance: This absolute negative limitation is a critical component of the security promise of the invention. Whether the accused RBI system meets this "zero-tolerance" standard for original executable code will likely be a significant point of dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (i.e., a strict reading of "no"): The plain language of the claim is absolute. The patent's objective is to protect the user computer by preventing it from processing potentially malicious code, which supports a strict reading that "no" means "zero" ('712 Patent, col. 2:32-39).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (i.e., a qualified reading): A party may argue that "executable code" should be interpreted in the context of the patent to mean potentially harmful or untrusted code, and that benign or sanitized code necessary for interactivity falls outside its scope. The claim itself requires preserving "original user functionality" through layers containing links and user input fields, which could imply that some form of safe, client-side script is permissible and does not vitiate the claim's purpose ('712 Patent, col. 16:26-33).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Forcepoint induces infringement by "providing instructions to consumer end-users" on how to use the RBI service in a manner that practices the claimed method (Compl. ¶48). It is also alleged that Forcepoint has knowledge of the patent and specific intent to cause infringement by its customers (Compl. ¶49).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful," but it alleges knowledge of infringement "at least as of the service of the present complaint" (Compl. ¶34) and that, on information and belief, Defendant has "made no effort to alter its services" to avoid infringement after becoming aware of its infringing conduct (Compl. ¶52). These allegations may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement.

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court's determination of several key technical and legal questions:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "interactive pixilated image," which suggests a bitmap-based representation, be construed to cover the specific type of data stream generated by Forcepoint's modern Remote Browser Isolation technology?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the accused Forcepoint RBI system transmit any "original browser executable code" to the end-user's device to enable functionality? The absolute nature of this negative claim limitation makes the infringement analysis highly sensitive to this factual determination.
• The viability of the indirect infringement claim will hinge on a predicate question of end-user action: can Plaintiff demonstrate that Forcepoint's customers, by using the RBI service as intended, directly perform all steps of the method claimed in the '712 patent?