DCT
7:25-cv-00522
Congruent Media Resourcing LLC v. Preemptive Solutions LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Congruent Media Resourcing LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: PreEmptive Solutions, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
- Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00522, W.D. Tex., 11/13/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Dotfuscator application security software infringes a patent related to methods for creating secure software applications by modifying pre-compiled code.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns "application wrapping" or "hardening," a process for adding security features to software without access to the original source code, which is significant for securing mobile and enterprise applications.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or other significant procedural events related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-10-10 | ’418 Patent Priority Date |
| 2015-09-15 | U.S. Patent No. 9,135,418 Issued |
| 2025-11-13 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,135,418, “System and Method for Creating Secure Applications,” issued September 15, 2015.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the security risks that arise when enterprise data is placed on employees' personal devices, such as smartphones, where personal applications may contain malware or other vulnerabilities that could lead to data breaches (’418 Patent, col. 1:22-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method to convert a standard, non-secure "target application" into a secure one without modifying its source code. This is achieved by imposing one or more "intercepts"—new or replacement instructions that can interrupt the program's normal flow—to enforce security policies (’418 Patent, col. 1:54-2:3). The modified application is then "repackaged" so that these intercepts are integrated and become physically inseparable from the original application files, creating an "immutable deployable entity" that is resistant to tampering (’418 Patent, col. 2:4-10).
- Technical Importance: This "application wrapping" technique allows security and management layers to be injected directly onto compiled applications, removing the need for developer-implemented changes or access to source code, thereby reducing potential programmer errors and streamlining the security process for third-party applications (’418 Patent, col. 12:44-47).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 9 (Compl. ¶17).
- The essential elements of Claim 9 are:
- Receiving a target application that is designed to interact with an operating system;
- Configuring the target application by imposing one or more intercepts on it, wherein the intercepts convert the application into a secure version that maintains interaction with the operating system; and
- Repackaging the secure application such that the intercepts are integrated with and inseparable from it.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is PreEmptive Solutions' Dotfuscator software (Compl. ¶18).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Dotfuscator is a tool for generating secure applications using Runtime Application Self-Protection ("RASP") technology (Compl. ¶19). It is alleged to operate by injecting "Checks" (e.g., Tamper Checks, Debugging Checks) into a target application via code injection (Compl. ¶21). The complaint asserts these "Checks" are a form of "intercepts" that protect the application while it runs by detecting and reacting to unauthorized uses or modifications (Compl. ¶21). A screenshot provided in the complaint describes Dotfuscator as a tool for protecting applications built using Xamarin, .NET, and Maui (Compl. p. 7). The complaint alleges that by injecting these protective measures into an application's binary form, the protection follows the application wherever it may go (Compl. ¶22).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
9,135,418 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving a target application that is designed to interact with an operating system | Dotfuscator receives a target application, such as one built using .NET or Xamarin, which interacts with the host operating system at the process and kernel level. | ¶20 | col. 1:42-45 |
| configuring the target application by imposing one or more intercepts on the target application, wherein the imposition of the intercepts converts the target application into a secure application that maintains the interaction with the operating system | Dotfuscator configures the target application by injecting code for "Checks" (e.g., Tamper Checks), which the complaint alleges are "intercepts" that create a secure application by protecting it from attacks. A visual in the complaint explicitly describes this process as "code injection" (Compl. p. 8). | ¶21 | col. 1:54-61 |
| repackaging the secure application such that the intercepts are integrated with the secure application and are inseparable from the secure application | Dotfuscator allegedly "injects their protective measures into the mobile app in its binary form," which the complaint asserts makes the intercepts integrated with and inseparable from the secure application. A provided screenshot states this protection "follows your mobile app wherever it may go" (Compl. p. 9). | ¶22 | col. 2:4-10 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the "Checks" injected by Dotfuscator meet the patent's definition of "intercepts." The patent defines an intercept as a "replacement of existing instruction or a new instruction that may interrupt program flow" (’418 Patent, col. 1:66-2:3). The analysis will question whether Dotfuscator's runtime validation "Checks" perform this specific function.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that Dotfuscator’s process makes the injected measures "inseparable," aligning with the claim language. However, the evidence provided is from marketing materials (Compl. ¶22). A key technical question will be what evidentiary support exists to show that the accused process creates an "immutable deployable entity" (’418 Patent, col. 2:9-10) where the injected code is "physically inseparable" (’418 Patent, col. 2:7-8), as opposed to merely bundled or linked.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "intercepts"
- Context and Importance: This term is the core mechanism of the invention. Plaintiff's infringement theory equates Dotfuscator's security "Checks" with the claimed "intercepts" (Compl. ¶21). The definition of this term will be critical to determining whether the accused functionality falls within the claim scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific definition: "An intercept, for purposes of this description, may be considered as an actual replacement of an existing instruction or a new instruction that may interrupt program flow and conditionally return control to the program flow" (’418 Patent, col. 1:66-2:3). This language may support a construction limited to code that directly replaces or interrupts instructions at a low level.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent also describes intercepts in more general terms, such as imposing them to "enable selective behavior modification" (’418 Patent, col. 3:27-29) or to "interced[e] in calls to data sharing or data storage application programming interfaces" (’418 Patent, col. 3:51-54). This could support a broader meaning that includes any injected code that modifies application behavior in response to security policies.
The Term: "repackaging ... such that the intercepts are ... inseparable"
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines the final state of the secured application. The infringement allegation hinges on the assertion that Dotfuscator's process of injecting measures into the application's "binary form" renders them "inseparable" (Compl. ¶22).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links this process to creating an "immutable deployable entity" where intercepts are "physically inseparable from the original files" (’418 Patent, col. 2:7-10). This language suggests a high degree of integration, potentially requiring a construction where the injected code cannot be technically removed or disabled without breaking the application.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "inseparable" does not require absolute immutability but rather a level of integration that prevents easy removal by an end-user or unauthorized party, consistent with the patent's stated goal of preventing tampering (’418 Patent, col. 2:10-11).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶23). Inducement is alleged based on Defendant's advertising and instructional materials, which allegedly encourage customers to use Dotfuscator in a manner that directly infringes Claim 9 (Compl. ¶¶23-24). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that Dotfuscator is a material part of the invention, was adapted for infringement, and is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶25).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It alleges that Defendant became aware of the infringement "at least as of the date of the service of the original Complaint" as a basis for post-suit indirect infringement (Compl. ¶¶24, 25), but it does not allege pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Do Dotfuscator's runtime security "Checks," which are described as a form of "code injection," fall within the patent’s more specific definition of "intercepts" as instructions that replace or interrupt program flow?
- A second central issue will be one of technical and evidentiary sufficiency: Does the process performed by Dotfuscator render its injected "Checks" "inseparable" from the target application in the manner contemplated by the patent, which describes creating an "immutable" and "physically inseparable" entity? The case may turn on whether the marketing materials cited in the complaint can be substantiated with technical evidence showing this high level of integration.