DCT

7:25-cv-00289

Authentixx LLC v. Projectmanagercom Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00289, W.D. Tex., 06/20/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because the Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement there, and Plaintiff has suffered harm in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to methods for authenticating electronic content, such as web pages.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods to verify the authenticity of electronic content to combat online fraud, such as spoofed or "phishing" websites, by embedding a unique, user-verifiable marker.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term to that of an earlier patent in its family. The patent’s front matter also references an extensive history of prior art examination and related litigation involving the patent family, suggesting the claims may have been subject to significant scrutiny.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-09-09 '863 Patent Priority Date
2017-12-08 '863 Patent Application Filing Date
2019-07-16 '863 Patent Issue Date
2025-06-20 Complaint Filing Date

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 addresses the problem of online fraud where malicious actors create counterfeit web pages or emails that mimic legitimate ones to steal personal information ('863 Patent, col. 1:36-61). Consumers may be deceived because visual identifiers like logos can be easily copied, and fraudulent URLs can look deceptively similar to legitimate ones ('863 Patent, col. 1:24-35).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a server, before sending content like a web page to a user, inserts a unique "authenticity stamp" or "authenticity key" into the content ('863 Patent, Abstract). This stamp is then verified by software on the user's computer (e.g., a browser plug-in) to confirm the content's origin ('863 Patent, col. 2:15-22). The system is designed so the user can configure a personalized stamp, making it immediately recognizable to them and difficult for a fraudster to replicate ('863 Patent, col. 2:23-30). A diagram shows a sample webpage with a diamond-shaped 'SEAL OF APPROVAL' authenticity stamp added to the content ('863 Patent, Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide a layer of security independent of the communication protocol (like HTTPS) by creating a user-specific visual or data-based verification directly within the displayed content, enhancing user confidence against spoofing attacks ('863 Patent, col. 3:48-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the '863 patent without specifying them (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative:

  • Independent Claim 1:
    • 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 one or more designated servers, an authenticity key with information to locate the preferences file;
    • receiving a request from a client computer for the at least one web page;
    • creating, by the one or more designated servers, formatted data corresponding to the requested at least one web page;
    • sending the formatted data to the client computer;
    • providing the authenticity key for manipulation to determine the file location of the preferences file;
    • manipulating the authenticity key to determine the file location of the preferences file;
    • locating the preferences file in the file location;
    • retrieving the at least one authenticity stamp from the preferences file; and
    • enabling the at least one authenticity stamp to be displayed with a representation of the formatted data on a display of the client computer.

The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not name a specific product or service (Compl. ¶11). The allegations are directed at products "made, used, offered for sale, sold and/or imported" by Defendant ProjectManager.com, Inc. (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '863 Patent" but provides no specific description of their features or functionality (Compl. ¶13). 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 but does not provide specific factual allegations mapping accused product features to claim elements in the body of the complaint. Instead, it states that "Exhibit 2 includes charts comparing the Exemplary '863 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" and incorporates these charts by reference (Compl. ¶13-14). As Exhibit 2 was not filed with the complaint, a detailed analysis of the infringement theory is not possible based on the provided documents. The complaint narratively alleges that Defendant directly infringes by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products and by having its "employees internally test and use these Exemplary Products" (Compl. ¶11-12).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "authenticity stamp"

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention, representing the verifiable marker that confirms the content's origin. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as the nature of the "stamp" in the accused product must fall within the claim's scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the stamp in various forms, including "graphics only, text only or a combination thereof," a "blinking stamp," and even an "audio" stamp, suggesting the term is not limited to a static visual icon ('863 Patent, col. 4:20-26). It can also comprise personal information known only to the user and sender ('863 Patent, col. 4:62-65).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Specific embodiments show a distinct visual marker, such as the "diamond shape" with text reading "JOE'S SEAL OF APPROVAL" or an embedded text string like "A-OKAY" in a graphical image ('863 Patent, col. 4:10-18; Figs. 2, 3). A defendant may argue these examples limit the term to a discrete, user-configured visual element.

  • The Term: "preferences file"

    • Context and Importance: The location, accessibility, and content of this "file" are recited in multiple steps of the independent claims. Whether the accused system uses a data structure that meets the definition of a "preferences file" as claimed will be a key infringement question.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not define "file" with technical particularity, which may support an interpretation covering any data structure or database entry that stores user preferences for the authenticity stamp.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses storing the file in a "random directory to help obscure the location" on the "user's computer," and retrieving it via a "preferences key" ('863 Patent, col. 11:47-53, col. 12:62-65). This might be used to argue that the term requires a discrete file object stored in a specific manner on the client-side, rather than a server-side database record.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement. It only pleads a single count for direct infringement (Compl. ¶10-15).

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

  1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: The primary initial question is whether the complaint's reliance on an un-filed external exhibit for its infringement allegations meets the pleading standards of Iqbal and Twombly, or if it will be found to lack sufficient factual detail to state a plausible claim for relief.
  2. Definitional Scope: A core substantive issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "authenticity stamp," as defined and described in the patent, be construed to read on the specific security or verification features of the unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products"?
  3. Technical Locus of Control: The infringement analysis may turn on a key architectural question: does the accused system perform the claimed steps of storing a "preferences file" and creating an "authenticity key" at a "designated server" as required by claim 1, or does the functionality reside elsewhere (e.g., entirely on the client-side or through a different server arrangement), creating a potential mismatch with the claim language?