Proxense LLC v. Intel Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Proxense, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Intel Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hecht Partners LLP
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00531, W.D. Tex., 11/14/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a large, permanent campus in Austin, Texas, where it employs thousands of individuals, including personnel involved in the design, development, validation, and support of the accused technologies.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s processors, chipsets, and platform technologies, particularly those incorporating Platform Trust Technology (PTT) and Converged Security and Management Engine (CSME) in its Evo and vPro platforms, infringe six patents related to secure identity and trusted computing.
• Technical Context: The technology domain concerns hardware-rooted security for computing devices, which is critical for enabling secure biometric authentication, passwordless login, and protecting sensitive user and system data.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with written notice of its patented technology through a licensing representative as early as 2013, a fact that forms the basis for Plaintiff’s willful infringement allegations.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-05-05	Earliest Priority Date for ’919, ’792, ’222, and ’628 Patents
2007-12-19	Earliest Priority Date for ’456 Patent
2013-04-30	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,433,919
c. 2013	Alleged launch of Intel PTT and CSME
c. 2013	Alleged written notice of patent portfolio provided to Intel
2013-05-10	Earliest Priority Date for ’898 Patent
2016-08-02	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,405,898
2018-06-05	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,990,628
2019-11-05	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,469,456
2021-11-23	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,182,792
2023-01-10	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,551,222
2025-11-14	Complaint Filing Date

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

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

U.S. Patent No. 9,405,898 - Secure Element as a Digital Pocket (Issued Aug. 2, 2016)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of fragmented secure element architectures in computing, where different host devices used different types of secure hardware (e.g., discrete TPMs, firmware-based modules, smartcards), making it difficult for software to interact with them reliably and consistently (Compl. ¶64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for virtualizing secure element resources. It presents a uniform set of "virtual resources" to software applications and then maps those virtual resources to the underlying "physical resources" available on a given device, thereby creating a hardware abstraction layer that allows software to function consistently regardless of the specific secure hardware implementation (’898 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶65).
• Technical Importance: This approach of hardware abstraction for secure elements was intended to improve software compatibility across different devices and enable new forms of trusted computing that were not dependent on a specific hardware configuration (Compl. ¶65).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 8 (Compl. ¶66).
• The essential elements of Claim 8 include:
  • presenting, to a secure element, one or more virtual resources; and
  • mapping the one or more virtual resources to one or more available physical resources based on a model architecture for the secure element and to provide hardware abstraction...
  • ...the virtual resources allowing consistent interaction with the virtual resources regardless of variation in the physical resources available...
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,469,456 - Security System and Method for Controlling Access to Computing Resources (Issued Nov. 5, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty and administrative overhead users face in managing numerous distinct usernames and passwords for various computing resources and third-party systems, creating a need for a more automatic and nonintrusive security system (’456 Patent, col. 1:46-59, col. 2:7-9).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a security system comprising a portable Personal Digital Key (PDK), a reader, and a computing device. The computing device’s "detection engine" controls access to protected resources by detecting the presence or absence of the PDK via the reader. Access policies are defined by an administrator and stored in an encrypted "vault storage" on the computing device, allowing or denying access automatically based on the PDK's proximity and the established rules (’456 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 7).
• Technical Importance: The system aimed to unify biometric authentication with granular, administrator-defined policies enforced at the hardware and firmware level, a combination the complaint characterizes as a "breakthrough" (Compl. ¶79).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 11 (Compl. ¶80).
• The essential elements of Claim 11 include:
  • receiving, by a computing device, security data from a personal digital key subsequent to wireless communication and biometric authentication;
  • determining security set up data stored in a dedicated, encrypted portion of a memory of the computing device;
  • the security set up data being based on one or more administrator defined options that allow for different security actions for different computing resources;
  • the security actions being consistently implemented for a given resource across users;
  • and allowing access to the secured computing resource based on the received security data and the security set up data.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,433,919 - Two-Level Authentication for Secure Transactions (Issued April 30, 2013)

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,433,919, "Two-Level Authentication for Secure Transactions," issued April 30, 2013 (Compl. ¶49).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the need to balance performance and security in biometric validation. It discloses a layered approach involving a quick, local biometric comparison against a stored "sample," followed by a more secure, registry-based validation of the full biometric profile and device registration over a secure channel (Compl. ¶¶ 91-92).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 25 (Compl. ¶93).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Intel's systems store biometric profiles and smaller samples in a secure enclave (CSME), perform local comparisons via Windows Hello, and then validate the device and transaction by communicating with a remote registry (Compl. ¶95).

U.S. Patent No. 11,182,792 - Personal Digital Key Initialization and Registration for Secure Transactions (Issued November 23, 2021)

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,182,792, "Personal Digital Key Initialization and Registration for Secure Transactions," issued November 23, 2021 (Compl. ¶52).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses balancing user convenience with security in proximity-based authentication systems. It discloses methods that use transaction value thresholds to determine whether a transaction can be processed automatically or if it requires a higher level of security, such as biometric authentication (Compl. ¶¶ 53, 104-105).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶106).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Intel's Windows Hello enrollment and provisioning flows, which allegedly detect devices, validate their identity locally, and process transactions differently based on whether they are above or below preset thresholds (Compl. ¶¶ 54, 108).

U.S. Patent No. 11,551,222 - Single Step Transaction Authentication Using Proximity and Biometric Input (Issued January 10, 2023)

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,551,222, "Single Step Transaction Authentication Using Proximity and Biometric Input," issued January 10, 2023 (Compl. ¶55).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the "collision problem" that occurs when multiple biometric-capable devices are present simultaneously. It discloses a method where a reader receives biometric samples from multiple devices, captures a new biometric input at the time of transaction, compares the input to the samples to find the correct match, and associates that specific device with the transaction (Compl. ¶¶ 56, 117-118).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶119).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Intel's Evo and vPro systems that support multi-user environments with Windows Hello integration, alleging they perform the claimed steps to resolve which user's biometric input is being provided in a shared setting (Compl. ¶¶ 57, 121).

U.S. Patent No. 9,990,628 - Two-Level Authentication for Secure Transactions (Issued June 5, 2018)

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,990,628, "Two-Level Authentication for Secure Transactions," issued June 5, 2018 (Compl. ¶58).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses methods for biometric transaction processing where a personal digital key performs a local comparison against a stored sample, retrieves a full profile from secure memory for re-validation, and participates in workflows to transmit authorization or transactional data for registry-based validation (Compl. ¶¶ 59, 130).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶132).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Intel firmware (PTT/CSME) of performing secure-element operations such as key sealing/unsealing, credential release, and secure authentication flows, which are alleged to constitute the steps of the claimed method (Compl. ¶¶ 60, 134).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Intel processors, chipsets, and platforms incorporating Platform Trust Technology (“PTT”) and the Converged Security and Management Engine (“CSME”) (Compl. ¶5). This includes, without limitation, Intel Core processors (8th to 14th Generation and beyond), Intel Evo consumer laptops, and Intel vPro enterprise platforms (Compl. ¶¶ 66, 93).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that PTT provides a firmware-based Trusted Platform Module (TPM) that virtualizes secure element functionality, abstracting the underlying physical hardware (Compl. ¶¶ 45, 68-69). CSME is alleged to provide a secure execution environment with dedicated encrypted partitions for storing security setup data and enforcing administrator-defined access control policies (Compl. ¶48). Intel allegedly markets these features as "hardware-rooted trust" and "enterprise-grade biometric security," positioning them as key differentiators for its Evo and vPro platforms (Compl. ¶7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not include claim chart exhibits mapping the asserted claims to the accused products. The narrative infringement theories for the lead patents are summarized below.

'898 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Intel’s PTT and CSME technologies practice the method of asserted Claim 8. The theory is that PTT presents "virtualized secure element resources" to the operating system, which allows software to interact with trusted platform functions consistently, regardless of whether the physical hardware is a discrete TPM chip or an integrated firmware solution like PTT (Compl. ¶68). The CSME is alleged to provide the "model architecture" for mapping these virtualized resources to the physical hardware elements, thereby providing the "hardware abstraction" required by the claim (Compl. ¶68). Intel’s own documentation is cited as confirming that PTT provides the same functions as a discrete TPM while abstracting the physical implementation (Compl. ¶69).

• Identified Points of Contention: The analysis may focus on whether Intel’s implementation of the industry-standard TPM 2.0 specification via PTT constitutes the specific inventive method of "presenting" and "mapping" "virtual resources" as defined by the ’898 Patent. A central question may be whether the patent claims a specific method of virtualization that is distinct from the standard functionality of a firmware-based TPM.

'456 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Intel’s Evo and vPro platforms practice the method of asserted Claim 11. The theory is that after a user performs a biometric login via Windows Hello, the Intel-based computer "receives security data" (Compl. ¶82). This data is allegedly processed against "setup data" stored in an encrypted partition within the CSME. This system is alleged to allow administrators to define differentiated access control policies for various resources, which are then enforced consistently across users of a resource. This set of operations is alleged to map directly to the limitations of Claim 11 (Compl. ¶82).

• Identified Points of Contention: A key question may be whether the combination of functionality from Intel’s hardware/firmware (PTT/CSME) and Microsoft’s software (Windows Hello) can be attributed to a single actor to support a claim of direct infringement by Intel. Further, the analysis may examine whether the configuration settings available in Intel’s vPro platform qualify as the claimed "security set up data" containing "administrator defined options" as understood in the context of the ’456 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Based on the allegations for the ’456 Patent, the construction of the following terms may be central to the dispute.

• The Term: "security set up data" (from Claim 11)
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the information used by the computing device to enforce access control. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the policy and configuration information stored within Intel's CSME falls within the scope of this term.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes this data as including "usernames, passwords and other information utilized by the computing device to grant access," which may support a broad reading to include any security-related configuration data (’456 Patent, col. 2:34-37).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent illustrates this data as a specific "setup record" created by a "set up module" with specific fields and options (e.g., "Auto-Access Options," "Re-Confirm Options") (’456 Patent, Fig. 10). A court could be asked to limit the term to such structured records.
• The Term: "administrator defined options" (from Claim 11)
  • Context and Importance: This term requires that the security policies be customizable in a particular way. The dispute may turn on whether the level of customization offered by Intel's vPro platform (e.g., through BIOS settings or enterprise management tools) meets the patent's requirement for defining "different security actions for different resources."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language "one or more administrator defined options that allow an administrator to define one or more security actions" suggests that any ability for an administrator to set policies could suffice (’456 Patent, col. 18:50-54).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description and figures show a specific user interface for setting these options, such as requiring biometric confirmation for some resources but not others (’456 Patent, Fig. 10, 1004). This could support an argument that the term is limited to the specific types of granular, resource-differentiated controls disclosed.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is based on Intel’s publication of technical documentation, platform specifications, whitepapers, and configuration guides that allegedly instruct and encourage OEMs, IT administrators, and end users to enable and use the accused PTT and CSME features in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 70, 83, 96). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that Intel supplies processors and firmware that are especially adapted for the infringing uses and are not suitable for substantial non-infringing uses when configured as instructed (Compl. ¶¶ 71, 84, 97).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents. The basis is alleged pre-suit knowledge of Proxense’s patent portfolio dating back to at least 2013 from correspondence with a licensing representative, as well as alleged knowledge from "prior litigation involving related technologies" (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 37, 72). The complaint alleges that Intel’s continued activities despite this knowledge demonstrate reckless disregard for Proxense’s patent rights.

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

• A core issue will be one of technical and functional scope: Do Intel's PTT and CSME, which implement industry-standard trusted computing functionalities, perform the specific, proprietary methods of hardware abstraction, policy enforcement, and multi-level authentication as claimed by the Proxense patents, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation that places them outside the patents' scope?
• A second central question will address liability for system-level infringement: Given that the accused functionality often involves a combination of Intel's hardware/firmware, third-party software (e.g., Windows Hello), and configuration by OEMs or end-users, can the complaint's allegations for direct infringement against Intel alone be sustained, or will the case depend primarily on the strength of its indirect infringement theories?
• A key evidentiary question will concern willfulness: What was the specific content and context of the alleged 2013 notice and "prior litigation," and will this evidence be sufficient to meet the high bar for establishing pre-suit knowledge and willful blindness required to justify an award of enhanced damages?