Authentixx LLC v. Sage Capital Bank

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Authentixx LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Sage Capital Bank (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00290, W.D. Tex., 06/21/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on the Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe a patent related to methods for authenticating electronic content to verify its origin.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of online fraud, such as phishing, by providing a system to verify that a web page or email originates from a legitimate source rather than a malicious imposter.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer and is part of a larger family of patents originating from a 1999 provisional application. The patent’s front page lists extensive prior litigation and administrative challenges (Inter Partes and Covered Business Method Reviews) involving its parent patents and the original assignee, Secure Axcess, LLC, suggesting a history of active enforcement and challenges to the validity and scope of related claims.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,355,863 (“the ’863 Patent”), titled “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 copy corporate logos, icons, and URLs to create counterfeit web pages or emails. This deception can trick consumers into revealing sensitive personal information, as they cannot be confident that the content they are viewing is authentic (’863 Patent, col. 1:24-40, 1:49-61).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where, upon a user's request for a web page, the content is routed through an authentication server. This server inserts an "authenticity key" into the page before returning it to the user. The user's computer, equipped with special logic (e.g., a browser plug-in), uses this key to verify the page's authenticity and display a pre-configured, user-defined "authenticity stamp" (e.g., a custom icon or text) to confirm the page is genuine (’863 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:12-22; Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to provide a dynamic, out-of-band verification mechanism that allowed users to visually confirm a website's identity, offering a layer of security against spoofing that was independent of then-standard protocols like HTTPS (’863 Patent, col. 3:41-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but does not specify which, instead referencing an external exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Claim 9 is a representative independent method claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 9 include:
  • Storing an "authenticity stamp" in a "preferences file" in a specific file location.
  • A designated server creating an "authenticity key" with information to locate that "preferences file".
  • The server receiving a request for a web page from a client computer.
  • The server sending formatted data (the web page) and the "authenticity key" to the client.
  • Processing the "authenticity key" at the client to determine the "preferences file" location.
  • Locating the "preferences file", retrieving the "authenticity stamp", and enabling its display with the web page.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but its general reference to "one or more claims" suggests this possibility (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, services, or methods. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are detailed in an attached "Exhibit 2," which was not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶13).

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’s infringement allegations are contained entirely within an incorporated exhibit that was not provided with the public filing (Compl. ¶13-14). The complaint itself offers no factual assertions mapping any feature of an accused product to any specific claim limitation. It states only that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '863 Patent" (Compl. ¶13). Consequently, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the provided documents.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "authenticity stamp", as defined in the patent, can be construed to read on the security features of modern online banking systems. Similarly, the dispute may turn on whether the accused system uses a data object that meets the definition of an "authenticity key" whose recited function is to locate a client-side "preferences file".
  • Technical Questions: The patent claims a specific client-server architecture involving a browser plug-in, a client-side "preferences file", and a server-generated "authenticity key". A key technical question will be whether the Plaintiff can present evidence that the Defendant's system, likely built on modern web standards, actually operates according to this specific, multi-step process.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "authenticity stamp"

• Context and Importance: This term is the visible indicator of authenticity for the end-user and is a cornerstone of the claimed invention. Its construction will be critical for determining whether modern security indicators used by the accused systems fall within the scope of the claims.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the stamp in broad terms, noting it can be "graphics only, text only or a combination thereof" and can even be audio. It is also described as containing personalized information known only to the user and sender, such as account details (’863 Patent, col. 4:19-26; col. 5:1-6). This could support an argument that any unique, verifying information presented to a user qualifies.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures and preferred embodiments repeatedly depict the stamp as a distinct, user-configured visual element (e.g., "JOE'S SEAL OF APPROVAL") that is stored locally in a preferences file and overlaid on a web page (’863 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 4:10-17). This could support a narrower construction limited to a user-customized visual mark stored on the client device.

• The Term: "preferences file"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the location and nature of the stored "authenticity stamp". Infringement of the asserted claims appears to require the existence of such a file on the client computer. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern web applications often avoid storing security assets in local files in the manner described.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly limit the format or structure of the file, referring to it as a place to store "user configuration information, such as appearance and location of authenticity stamp" (’863 Patent, col. 12:50-54). Plaintiff may argue this covers modern forms of local storage, such as browser cookies or cached data.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests a specific file architecture, noting the file is "stored on the user's 110 file system" and that its location is deliberately obscured in a "random directory" to prevent discovery (’863 Patent, col. 6:38-40; col. 12:64-67). This may support a narrower definition tied to a discrete file within the client's operating system file structure, as opposed to browser-managed storage.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement or make any factual assertions regarding pre- or post-suit knowledge of the patent. It does request that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is a basis for seeking attorney’s fees (Compl., Prayer for Relief, E.i).

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

• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: given the complaint's lack of specific factual allegations, the case will depend on whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused online banking platform performs the specific, multi-step method of the claims, particularly the use of a server-generated "authenticity key" to locate and retrieve a user-defined "authenticity stamp" from a client-side "preferences file".
• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim terms "authenticity stamp" and "preferences file", rooted in the patent's 1999-priority-date disclosure of a browser plug-in architecture, be construed broadly enough to encompass the disparate and potentially server-driven security features of a contemporary web application?