Authentixx LLC v. Lee Enterprises Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Authentixx LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Lee Enterprises, Incorporated (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00288, W.D. Tex., 06/20/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on the Defendant having an established place of business within the Western District of Texas and having committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to a system and method for authenticating electronic content, such as web pages and emails, to verify their origin.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of online fraud and phishing by providing a method for embedding a verifiable, user-recognizable authenticity marker into electronic content.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,355,863 - "System and method for authenticating electronic content"

• Patent Identification: 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 risk of online fraud where malicious actors create counterfeit web pages or emails that mimic legitimate ones by copying logos and using deceptive URLs, a practice commonly known as "phishing." This creates uncertainty for consumers about the authenticity of the digital content they are viewing. (’863 Patent, col. 1:25-63).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to solve this by embedding an "authenticity marker" into electronic content. When a user requests a web page, a server system intercepts the request, retrieves the content, and inserts an "authenticity key." A client-side component, such as a browser plug-in, uses this key to verify the content's origin and displays a pre-configured, user-defined "authenticity stamp" (e.g., a custom image or phrase) to confirm to the user that the page is genuine. (’863 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:12-30; Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to create a more robust and user-centric trust indicator than simply checking a URL or the presence of a standard security protocol, giving users a personalized and easily recognizable confirmation of a website's identity. (’863 Patent, col. 1:40-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’863 Patent (Compl. ¶11). 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 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 from the client;
  • 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 from the preferences file; and
  • enabling the authenticity stamp to be displayed on the client computer.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint does not identify the accused products or services by name. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" which it states are detailed in an "Exhibit 2" that was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 13). Therefore, the specific functionality and market context of the accused instrumentality cannot be described based on the provided documents.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the infringement theory is detailed in claim charts provided as "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 14). Because this exhibit was not filed with the complaint, a claim chart summary cannot be produced. The body of the complaint does not contain a narrative infringement theory. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the language of the patent, the infringement analysis, once developed, may raise several technical and legal questions:
  • Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites a specific client-server architecture involving "one or more designated servers" that create an "authenticity key" and respond to a separate request for that key. A central question will be whether the accused system's architecture maps to this specific, multi-step process or employs a more integrated, single-request authentication method.
  • Technical Questions: The patent describes the "authenticity stamp" as a user-configurable element intended to be personally recognizable (’863 Patent, col. 8:5-11). A likely point of dispute will be whether the accused system utilizes a generic, non-configurable security indicator or a feature that meets the user-defined nature of the claimed "authenticity stamp."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "authenticity stamp"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the user-facing proof of authentication. Its construction is critical because the patent heavily emphasizes its user-configurable nature. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if a standardized, non-configurable security icon used by an accused product falls within the claim's scope.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined with limiting language in the claims, which may support an argument that it encompasses any visual or audio indicator of authenticity.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that "an authenticity stamp is defined by the user" and that "the determination of the look of the authenticity stamp is under complete control of the user." (’863 Patent, col. 8:5-11). Figure 2 provides a specific example of a personalized stamp ("JOE'S SEAL OF APPROVAL"), suggesting the term requires a level of user customization beyond a generic symbol.

• The Term: "preferences file"

• Context and Importance: This is the claimed location for storing the "authenticity stamp." The nature of this "file"—whether it must be a discrete data file on a filesystem or can be a more abstract data entry in a configuration database—will be important for determining infringement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be argued to cover any client-side data store that holds configuration settings for the authentication feature, regardless of its implementation as a literal file.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification notes that "the preferences file is placed in a random directory to help obscure the location" (’863 Patent, col. 11:64-66). Claim 1 also recites steps of "locating the preferences file in the file location," which may imply a distinct, locatable file object rather than a general configuration setting within an application's data structure.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege any specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not include an explicit allegation of willful infringement or a request for enhanced damages. It does request that the case be declared "exceptional" for the purpose of awarding attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but it alleges no facts regarding pre-suit or post-suit knowledge of the patent or infringement. (Compl. p. 4, ¶ E.i).

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

1. A Pleading Sufficiency Question: The complaint's primary reliance on an un-provided exhibit to identify the accused products and explain its infringement theory raises an initial procedural question: does the pleading provide the Defendant with sufficient notice of the claims against it as required by federal rules?

2. A Definitional Scope Question: A core substantive issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "authenticity stamp," which the patent specification describes as being under the "complete control of the user," be construed to cover any standardized, non-configurable security indicator that may be used in the accused products?

3. An Architectural Congruence Question: A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural congruence: assuming the accused products are identified, does their system architecture perform the specific, multi-step communication protocol recited in Claim 1, including the distinct client requests for formatted data and a separate "authenticity key," or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?