DCT

7:25-cv-00357

UniQom LLC v. Dell Tech Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00357, W.D. Tex., 08/21/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Western District of Texas and having committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to a "digital identity device" that uses a unique, hardware-based microprocessor identifier for secure electronic communications and authentication.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses digital security by creating a hardware root of trust, tying a digital identity (e.g., a user's profile) to a unique identifier physically and permanently embedded within a microprocessor.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims priority to a provisional application filed in 2000. Subsequent to its issuance, the patent underwent an ex parte reexamination, with a certificate issued in April 2024 confirming the patentability of claims 1-4, 12, and 13. This confirmation may influence subsequent validity challenges against these specific claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-02-03 ’497 Patent Priority Date (Provisional Filing)
2000-09-08 ’497 Patent Application Filing Date
2009-02-17 ’497 Patent Issue Date
2024-04-19 ’497 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issued
2025-08-21 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,493,497 - "DIGITAL IDENTITY DEVICE"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a need in electronic communication for reliable authentication of the parties involved, requiring that each party be "clearly identifiable and distinguishable" to ensure security. (’497 Patent, col. 1:11-16). The patent frames the problem as the need for a method of uniquely identifying microprocessors to serve as the foundation for a digital identity device. (’497 Patent, col. 1:20-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "microprocessor identity device" that contains unique identity information permanently associated with the hardware. (’497 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:28-29). This is achieved by embedding a unique "microprocessor identity information" directly onto the microprocessor chip, which is then cryptographically bound to "digital identity data" (e.g., an individual's or corporation's name). (’497 Patent, col. 4:37-42). This creates a secure, hardware-anchored digital identity that can be used for authentication and to secure electronic transactions. (’497 Patent, col. 4:62-67). Figure 6 illustrates the concept of a microprocessor (605) containing memory (610) that stores this unique identity information (230). (’497 Patent, Fig. 6).
  • Technical Importance: This approach creates a hardware-based root of trust, tying a digital identity to a specific, unique physical component, which adds a layer of security compared to purely software-based identification methods prevalent at the time of the invention. (’497 Patent, col. 4:62-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific claims, referring only to "one or more claims" and "the exemplary method claims." (Compl. ¶11). The first independent claim, Claim 1, is a device claim that provides the foundational elements of the invention.
  • Independent Claim 1 of the ’497 Patent recites the following essential elements:
    • A microprocessor comprising a unique microprocessor identity, where the microprocessor has an on-die Programmable Read-Only Memory (PROM) and the identity is etched into the PROM.
    • Digital identity data that identifies an owner of the device.
    • A memory to store the digital identity data.
    • The microprocessor identity is an alpha-numeric value.
    • The digital identity data is bound to the microprocessor identity by encrypting the digital identity data with an algorithm that uses the microprocessor identity.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not name any specific Dell product, model, or service. (Compl. ¶11, ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality. All allegations regarding the functionality of the accused products are incorporated by reference from an "Exhibit 2" that was not attached to the publicly filed complaint. (Compl. ¶13, ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement theory relies entirely on claim charts in an "Exhibit 2," which is referenced but not provided with the pleading. (Compl. ¶13, ¶14). The complaint alleges in conclusory fashion that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '497 Patent" and that these products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '497 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges direct infringement by Defendant for making and selling these products, and by Defendant's employees for internally testing them. (Compl. ¶11, ¶12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold issue is whether the complaint, lacking any specific factual allegations about how an accused product operates and relying on a missing exhibit, meets the plausibility standard for patent infringement pleading established by Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly.
    • Technical Questions: A central technical question for the case will be whether any accused Dell product contains a microprocessor with a unique identifier that is "etched into the PROM" as required by Claim 1. Further, it raises the question of what evidence the complaint provides that an accused product performs the specific binding step of "encrypting the digital identity data using an algorithm that uses the microprocessor identity."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "etched into the PROM"

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention's hardware-based security. The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the method used to store a unique identifier in modern microprocessors falls within the scope of this language, which reflects the technology of the priority period.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that the term should be construed to cover any method of permanently and non-alterably storing a unique identifier within the microprocessor's silicon during manufacturing. The specification mentions that the identity is etched "using any conventional etching method," which may suggest the focus is on the permanent nature of the storage rather than a specific manufacturing technique. (’497 Patent, col. 6:1-3).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may argue for a literal interpretation requiring the presence of a "Programmable Read-Only Memory" (PROM) and a physical etching process, distinguishing it from other non-volatile memory technologies or methods like fusible links used in modern CPUs. The claim explicitly recites both "PROM" and "etched." (’497 Patent, col. 12:65-67).

  • The Term: "digital identity data is bound to the microprocessor identity by encrypting the digital identity data using an algorithm that uses the microprocessor identity"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the specific cryptographic link between the hardware identifier and the user's data. Practitioners may focus on this term because the precise mechanism of "binding" and "encrypting" will be a key point of comparison against the security architectures in accused products.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the operating system binding the data to the microprocessor identity by "encoding the digital identity data...with passwords" and also "by an algorithm that uses the microprocessor identity information." (’497 Patent, col. 4:37-42). This could support a construction that covers various cryptographic processes where the hardware ID serves as a key, a seed, or another input to secure the user data.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language may be interpreted to require a direct encryption process where the microprocessor identity itself is a direct input to the encryption algorithm that is applied to the digital identity data. This could be distinguished from more complex security schemes, such as using a hardware ID to unlock a separate key stored in a Trusted Platform Module (TPM), which in turn encrypts the data.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. However, the prayer for relief requests that the case be declared "exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285," which could entitle the plaintiff to an award of attorney's fees. (Compl. p. 4, ¶E.i). The complaint does not allege facts related to pre-suit or post-suit knowledge of the patent by Defendant.

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

  • A primary procedural question will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: can the complaint, which provides no factual detail regarding the accused products and bases its infringement allegations entirely on a missing exhibit, survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a plausible claim for relief?
  • A core issue will be one of technological scope: can the term "etched into the PROM," rooted in the context of year-2000 semiconductor technology, be construed to cover the methods used to implement hardware identifiers in modern CPUs and security modules (e.g., TPMs)?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional implementation: what proof will be offered to show that an accused Dell product performs the specific cryptographic function recited in the claims—namely, "binding" user data to a hardware ID by "encrypting the digital identity data using an algorithm that uses the microprocessor identity"?